Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Monday 24 June at Seven o'clock.

KING'S CROSS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 27 June.

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 27 June.

Mr. Speaker: The remaining three Bills have blocking motions. With the leave of the House I shall put them together.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 27 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Fishing Industry

Mr. David Porter: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet his counterpart from the Dutch Government to talk about the fishing industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I shall meet the Dutch Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on 2 July before the next Council of Fisheries Ministers on 8 July.

Mr. Porter: When my hon. Friend meets his Dutch counterpart, will he bear in mind that undersized fish are still being caught, landed, sold, and served on dinner plates in homes and restaurants throughout Holland? That

galling practice is particularly offensive to the law-abiding fishermen of Lowestoft, who feel that turning a blind eye, as the Dutch Government seem to be doing, is a particularly English practice and is therefore liable to encourage English fishermen to do the same?

Mr. Curry: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the Dutch have made significant efforts to tighten up inspection procedures and now have 100 inspectors—and some auxiliaries—for 550 boats. The previous Minister was changed because of the issue. We have good relations with the Dutch. If my hon. Friend has proof that we can put before the Dutch Minister, we shall not hesitate to do so.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: When the Minister meets the Dutch Minister, will he arrange it so that he and his Dutch counterpart bring pressure on their respective Foreign Offices to ensure both that the EC negotiations with the European Free Trade Association include no concessions to Spain in Norwegian waters which might endanger British or Dutch captures there, and that the negotiations are successful?

Mr. Curry: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is important to come to an arrangement with the EFTA countries, but it must not be at the expense of British fishermen. We are certainly conscious of the dangers of allowing Spanish vessels into Norwegian waters, particularly because of the impact that that might have on relative stability. We have, of course, made sure that the British Government are aware of the fishing industry's strong interests in such matters.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that the Dutch fishing fleet seems to have avoided the worst effects—indeed, any effects—of the introduction of the eight-day tie-up scheme? Will he bear that in mind when he meets his Dutch counterpart and find ways of ensuring that the United Kingdom fleet—particularly the Scottish inshore fleet—can avoid the worst effects of the eight-day tie-up scheme?

Mr. Curry: Clearly, we should like to have a mechanism to control fishing efforts that does not involve a tie-up. However, the Dutch fleet is subject to a unilateral tie-up at the instruction of the Dutch Government. The Dutch Minister proposes tie-ups as part of a more universal package of fisheries control. We must be cautious of such a scheme, given the difficulties that it poses for the fleet.

OECD Report

Mr. Irvine: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the report on agriculture recently issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): The report estimates that support for agriculture in OECD countries increased between 1989 and 1990. Although producer prices fell, world prices also fell and the net effect was an increase in support measured in this way.

Mr. Irvine: My right hon. Friend will have noticed that the OECD report concludes that unless the principal trading nations take speedy and effective action to reform their agricultural support policies, there will be severe


economic consequences, in particular, the escalation of trade tensions, price inflation and the holding back of economic growth. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that conclusion?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that that is a serious danger. That is why we are prosecuting the general agreement on tariffs and trade round so strongly. I know that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development made it clear that changes will have to take place involving all the participants, and that the support for agriculture that we found in the United States has similar effects to that which we find in the European Community. The idea that only the European Community must change is wholly without foundation.

Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister confirm that since he became Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, spending on the common agricultural policy has increased by no less that 55 per cent?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is keen on insisting that spending on the CAP has increased. If only the moneys getting to farmers had increased by 55 per cent., I should be much happier. We are waiting for the hon. Gentleman to tell us how much his policy would increase the spending of any future Labour Government. We have been unable to cost his policy so far because he has not given us the figures. I challenge him to tell us by how much he would increase the taxpayers' bill to pay for his green premium.

Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend take up with the OECD the problem that the CAP creates in preventing farmers from expanding production in areas in which Britain is not self-sufficient and in which we could increase our market levels? I am thinking especially of increasing our milk production so that we could more effectively compete in the richer market for dairy products. If we increased our export sales, that would help our balance of payments.

Mr. Gummer: Even though we are only 88 per cent. self-sufficient in butter fat, my hon. Friend must accept that we are producing butter and placing it in intervention. We must use the milk that we have to produce high-value products. That is why the milk marketing board is seeking new and better ways of marketing milk to that end. The idea of national self-sufficiency does not have the validity that my hon. Friend suggests within the European Community. We need to compete more effectively with over colleagues in the Community and ensure that we produce high-value products.

Scottish Fishermen's Federation

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his meeting with leaders of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation held on 3 June.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend and I, with the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for agriculture and fisheries, met leaders of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 3 June. We discussed conservation, decommissioning and the eight-day rule.

Mr. Wallace: There have been numerous press reports of the meeting, but will the Minister take this opportunity

to clarify precisely what his position is on decommissioning? Does he think that the industry should make a contribution or that there should be total funding by the industry? If conservation measures are to be attached to the policy, what sort of measures should they be? I have asked a clear question and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will provide clarification.

Mr. Gummer: My position is exactly what it was when I first stated it, and I shall continue to state it. The purpose of our policy must be the conservation of fish. Otherwise, there will be no fishing for the next generation of Scottish and English fishermen, or any other fishermen. I have said clearly that if conservation comes first, the decommissioning schemes so far proposed will not meet the conservation end. If we are to have any sort of decommissioning, it must be part and parcel of a package of measures that would conserve stocks. Such a package must be effective. Accordingly, I want the industry to propose measures that it believes it would be able to keep to and which it would be able to support. If such a series of measures came forward, it would have to have—I shall continue to use these words—a significant degree of support from the industry itself. I believe that to be necessary, and I want the industry to be involved in that way.

Sir Michael Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fishermen in my constituency are always in favour of genuine conservation measures, but they have expressed to me on many occasions their concern that he should protect the interests of all United Kingdom fishermen and not just a section of them?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right in saying that the interests of different sections of the fishing industry— different coasts of Scotland, different parts of England, and as between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—are not always the same and there are bound to be arguments between them. But the one issue that matters is that we conserve the stocks or there will be no British fishing industry. I am sad at those who try to garner votes today at the cost of fishermen's jobs tomorrow—that is the challenge I put to the Scottish National party.

Mr. Morley: Is the Minister saying that he is willing to implement a decommissioning scheme if conservation measures are agreed with the fishing industry, because that is a bit different from what he has been saying in previous debates in the House? On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about the EFTA discussions taking place on fishing grounds off Spitzbergen, will the Minister give us a date when those discussions will be finalised and will he confirm that the fishing industry will be consulted on what steps are being taken as part of those talks?

Mr. Gummer: I certainly cannot give a date. The arguments are fast and furious and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows well that there is no division between us on our determination to maintain the basis of the common fisheries policy and not to have that destroyed as a by-product of the negotiations, and that is what we shall continue to do. I shall state my case once again. I have said quite clearly that I shall not consider a decommissioning proposal except if such a proposal is part of a package of effective additional schemes for conservation which comes


from the industry. If such a proposal were made, I would not count out a decommissioning scheme so long as it had significant support from the industry.

Sheep Dips

Mr. Speller: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy on the future use of sheep dip compounds; and if he will now make it his policy to refuse future licences for the organo-phosphorous range of products.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): All sheep dips must be licensed under the Medicines Act 1968. It will continue to be our policy to issue licences for products that meet the strict requirements of safety, quality and efficacy after independent scientific assessment.

Mr. Speller: I do not thank my hon. Friend for that answer because it ducks the question of the future of organo-phosphorous dips. Is he aware of the number of farmers and farm workers who have been physically damaged by the use of those dips, which have precisely the same origin as the nerve gases used in warfare? Does he agree that farmers should be required to wear full protective clothing in the future and that fair compensation should be paid to those damaged in the past?

Mr. Maclean: Of course we are aware of the reports from people who have suffered allergies or reactions to the use of any compound, including pesticides and sheep dips. There are 99,000 sheep farmers in England, Wales and Scotland and we have reports of 63 adverse reactions. We are terribly sympathetic to farmers who suffer an adverse reaction, just as we are sympathetic to anyone who suffers an adverse reaction or has an allergy. I urge my hon. Friend to urge his constituents to send full medical reports to the independent veterinary products committee which is reviewing all organo-phosphate chemicals and sheep dips and any evidence will be taken into account. However, the Government do not insist on farmers using only organo-phosphate sheep dips. There is an alternative which is not made of that particular chemical.

Vets

Mr. Pike: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the increase in the number of vets that will be needed to meet requirements arising from EC directives and regulations.

Mr. Maclean: In 1989, my right hon. Friend the Minister established a working party under the chairmanship of Dr. Ewan Page to review the need for veterinary manpower in the United Kingdom both for the public service and for the private sector, and to make recommendations on how any increased manpower requirement might be met.

Mr. Pike: The Minister will recognise the increasing demand for vets arising from our own legislation and from European directives and requirements. Only recently veterinary training at Cambridge and Glasgow was under threat. That threat has now been lifted, but in 1990 we brought in more than 400 vets from overseas. Will the Minister give us every assurance that the Government will

not allow the nation to fail in those important services through not having sufficient trained vets from this country?

Mr. Maclean: Of course—we should be failing in our duty if we did not maintain the high standard of veterinary surgeons that this country has traditionally produced. Because we recognised the increasing work load that veterinary surgeons would be required to undertake under EC rules, we implemented the Page committee's recommendation that the ceiling on the intake of university students should be lifted. Universities are now recruiting more students to achieve the intake level of 400 per year.

Sir Richard Body: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be no shortage if the British Government followed the German example and pressed for an exemption for smaller slaughterhouses, where in the main the problems do not arise?

Mr. Maclean: That is not the simple answer to the problem. Veterinary expertise and manpower will be required in a whole host of areas in the future. Even if some exemptions were introduced for the smallest slaughterhouses, they would relate to their design and construction—not to the hygiene standards that must be maintained in all slaughterhouses.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Minister agree that health, and the quality of the product, can give our farmers an important competitive edge? What positive steps is he taking to promote animal health campaigns to eliminate, for example, enzootic abortion in sheep or to deal with fallen livestock? Small amounts of money spent now could reap important rewards in the future.

Mr. Maclean: The Ministry has animal health schemes which it is keen to promote, and a growing number of farmers are joining them. Yesterday, in Standing Committee on the Draft Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991, which is the successor to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), I said that as we shall have higher welfare standards for pigs and for pig meat—although we shall be pressing hard for Europe to follow our lead—I hoped that British producers would use their marketing advantage. There is nothing unethical about that.

Green Pound

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the value to United Kingdom farmers of the green pound devaluation agreed in the recent CAP price fixing settlement.

Mr. Harris: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the value to British farmers of the green pound devaluation agreed in the recent CAP price fixing settlement.

Mr. Gummer: It is estimated that the green pound devaluations should, on their own, increase United Kingdom producer incomes by around £125 million in a full year.

Mr. Brown: Does not my right hon. Friend's reply indicate that, against the expectations of the farming


community—which was steeling itself for difficult negotiations with the European Community—my right hon. Friend and his colleagues achieved an incredible increase in farm incomes? Ought not British farmers to acknowledge that we have a Minister and a Government who negotiate in Europe from a position of strength, and who have delivered to farmers an incredible settlement under this year's price review?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The figure of £125 million represents a restoration of the sum that British farmers ought to have —not an increase in their prices. We were offered only one third of that amount, but we got it all. That is partly a result of our strong position in Europe, which has been created in particular by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Clearly, we are seeking to co-operate within Europe, but we also take an extremely strong view of Britain's interests.

Mr. Harris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his achievement is welcomed by the hard-pressed farming community? Does he agree—as his last reply implied—that for many years British farmers have been cheated of their proper income by the wretched green pound system? Can he give an assurance that it will come to an end by the end of next year?

Mr. Gummer: Certainly. With the single market and Britain's membership of the exchange rate mechanism, we are moving towards a point where we shall be rid of the old green pound system. That is more proof—if proof is needed—that co-operation within the European Community is the way to achieve such ends. We have been successful, but that success was built on hard negotiation and a real understanding of Britain as being in the centre of the Community and not sidelined.

Mr. Martyn Jones: While the devaluation of the green pound is obviously welcome to my farmers, they would probably be far better helped by the payment of the 4 ecu ewe premium supplement this year, if that were possible. Has the Minister any plans to do that in view of the fact that the variable premium will be going by the end of the year and that my less-favoured area farmers are much more hard pressed than the average farmers in this country?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that we have tried to help the less-favoured area farmers in all circumstances by bringing forward the payments. It will be easier in future because the computerisation system now takes into account the headage payments and the rest which held us up before. I shall do everything possible to ensure that we pay those as early as we can in the circumstances and we have already announced that we shall do that in two parts.

Dr. David Clark: Can the Minister explain why, under his predecessor—the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor)—spending on the common agricultural policy fell, but under his own regime there has been an increase of 55 per cent? Does that not prove that the other agricultural Ministers in Europe are giving him the run-around?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman proves only one thing—that he has no idea about agriculture—every time that he comes to the Dispatch Box. Farmers' incomes have

fallen because the price in the market has fallen. Therefore, support prices have risen. When market prices rise it is possible not to increase support prices. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman presses this matter, the farmers of Britain will know that if there were a Labour Government they could expect a slashing attack on their incomes, a destruction of the farming industry, because the Opposition do not even care about agriculture enough to understand it—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. A lot of the disruption could be stopped if the Minister would turn towards me.

Mr. Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the bonus of £125 million is enormously to be welcomed and is a matter on which he deserves congratulations? However, will he compare that figure with the second bonus that farmers have received recently, which arises from the 3·5 per cent. reduction in interest rates in the past six months?

Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend is perfectly right about that. You, Mr. Speaker, will recognise that the reduction of interest rates has been brought about by the Government's positive policy and our ability to get inflation under control. However, I am sure that you would want me to remind the Opposition that their policies would push interest rates up again and increase taxation to levels that we have not experienced for 15 years.

Canned Meat

Mr. Loyden: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the effect on the United Kingdom canned meat industry of the import of canned meat from Poland.

Mr. Curry: I have received a number of representations about imports of pigmeat products from eastern Europe, but nothing about canned meat products in general or specifically about imports from Poland.

Mr. Loyden: Will the Minister investigate a claim made by a tinned meat factory in my constituency that cheap imports of tinned meat from Poland must be heavily subsidised to be as competitive as they are? The company is not afraid of competition, but this is tantamount to unfair competition and needs investigation to protect what remains of the British tinned industry and jobs in my constituency.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to let me know that he has a constituency interest, and my officials have already been in touch with the firm of Parrish and Fenn in his constituency. Some limited Polish imports, which benefit from special generalised system of preferences concessions, are coming into this country at the moment. That has enabled an element of the benefit to be passed back to the Polish producers. That said, however, Polish exports to this country are down severely because the Polish Government are hard up and are no longer paying export subsidies—imports are down 40 per cent. this year compared with last. I shall ask my officials to verify the specific complaints with the company and we shall follow those up.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend have regard to the interests of the consumer rather than paying attention to protectionist devices and will he heed the good sense of the British housewife, who can look after herself?

Mr. Curry: Of course, we shall pay attention to the interests of the consumer—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is answering a question.

Mr. Curry: I do not think, however, that the interests of the consumer would be served by a system that permitted the entire United Kingdom market to be taken over by imported products, to the detriment of our own production. That would cause a sharp reduction in consumer choice.

Animal Transportation

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made to stop the transportation of live animals from the United Kingdom to Europe following 1992.

Mr. Maclean: Agreement has not yet been reached in the EC on the transport of animals, but we are pressing to ensure that animals are properly cared for on all journeys in the Community.

Mr. Cohen: In a report published today, the Select Committee on Agriculture says that the Minister should stand firm against any degradation by the EC of United Kingdom safeguards for animals in transit. It also says that the United Kingdom's minimum values system, which prevents horses and ponies from being exported for slaughter, must be retained. Public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of those recommendations. Will the Minister accept them and show some gumption by saying no to the transport of live animals for slaughter after 1992?

Mr. Maclean: Ever since I became an Agriculture Minister, we have been saying exactly the same thing every month at the Dispatch Box. We will fight for the retention of minimum values and we will continue to fight for a welfare regime for animals in Europe that uses the best examples of the British system. We have our own excellent rules. We have been standing firm; we are standing firm; and we will continue to stand firm.

Dame Janet Fookes: Our EC partners seem to regard directives as lofty aspirations rather than detailed rules to be followed to the letter. What guarantee have we that, even if a good deal is struck, the regulations will be enforced?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend has put her finger on a good point. That is why we are determined that an enforcement system should operate in Europe which applies to all member states. This country has excellent enforcement procedures, not only through the Government but through animal welfare organisations, which are terribly anxious to ensure that animals are treated properly in transit. Many other EC countries do not have the same cultural attitude towards the protection of animals; that is why an EC-wide inspectorate is essential if our high standards are to be applied in every corner of the Community.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I say this with the best will in the world. Does not the Minister agree that many more live animals will be transported to the Continent next year and the year after because of our lack of slaughtering facilities? Many slaughterhouses will close in the next six months. What plans does the Minister have to solve the problem?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is one of the nicest Opposition Members, but as he is a spokesman for the Liberal Democratic party—which only yesterday published a federal document—I will not take his advice, or that of his hon. Friends, on how we can negotiate strongly and robustly in Europe. Liberal Democratic party policy is to say to Mr. MacSharry, "Please take this shirt off my back—and here is a spare one for Mr. Delors."

CAP Reform

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he is considering on the means by which the common agricultural policy may be reformed in order to promote better health.

Mr. Gummer: The Government fully recognise the need for any reform of the common agriculture policy to pay due regard to the nutrition and dietary needs of the population.

Mr. Coombs: Why must the British taxpayer subsidise the growing of tobacco in other Community states? Has my right hon. Friend any information to suggest that that iniquitous practice may soon be brought to an end?

Mr. Gummer: I have been a consistent opponent of the tobacco regime, which costs £1 billion a year. However, it is difficult to suggest that it is better to import tobacco from outside the Community than to use tobacco grown inside the Community. The real issue is to discourage people from smoking. That is the role of government and that role is becoming increasingly clear to all nations in the European Community.

Mr. McKelvey: Will the Minister accept that there was a forum in Ayrshire last week at which environmental health officers said that they were seriously concerned about the health risk resulting from the number of carcases, which they said was 54,600, that had been buried or disposed of, or in some cases even left lying on the hillsides of Dumfries, Galloway and Ayrshire? Will the Minister examine the issue seriously?

Mr. Gummer: We are constantly monitoring that matter. If they were environmental health officers, they came from local authorities which have all the legal requirements to make sure that that state of affairs does not occur and to enforce the law. They should enforce the law.

Sugar

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the volume and value of sugar to be used by the United Kingdom confectionery industry this year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Curry: I have no estimate, because we do not collect the information.

Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is great disappointment among consumers and producers in this country that the Commission's proposal to reduce sugar support prices by 5 per cent. has not gone through? Is he aware that our great confectionery industry will suffer as a result? Is he further aware that if the British Government were to press the matter further, we should be likely to see an increase in the benefits to the United Kingdom confectionery trade, which produces a surplus amounting to about £100 million in exports?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will be aware that we supported the case for a cut in the sugar price, not merely because it would be of benefit to consumers and manufacturers in Britain but because it is the best formula for the developing world rather than to give compensatory subsidies. I am strongly aware of the importance of the confectionery industry, which, as my hon. Friend says, has a £100 million a year trade surplus. I appreciate that the industry is strongly centred in my hon. Friend's constituency and that he is particularly attentive to its interests.

Family Farms

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he intends to introduce to assist medium-sized family farms that are dependent on livestock production.

Mr. Gummer: The Government are well aware of the difficulties facing livestock farmers. Government and Community support to the livestock industry is currently costing £900 million a year. This year, hill livestock compensatory allowances have been increased by an average of 14 per cent. and, as I announced on 14 May, for the second year running two advances will be paid under the annual ewe premium scheme. Furthermore, for the first time, sheep producers in the less-favoured areas will benefit from the £3·10 supplement to the ewe premium agreed last year, which next year will be increased by a further £1·20 as a result of the recent price fixing.

Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that any reform of the common agricultural policy must take account of the fact that farmers' incomes have dropped significantly in recent years and that if we are to maintain a stable agriculture industry, we must support medium-sized family farms, particularly those involved in livestock production, because their capacity for diversification is extremely limited?

Mr. Gummer: The size of the farm is not the key issue. Some larger farms, for example, support a large number of families. We are concerned that farming as a whole should be sufficiently supported to make it prosperous so that it can look after the land and produce the food that we need. We want that sort of reform—not the building up of surpluses, payments to intervention storekeepers or support leading to dumped prices in developing countries. The modulation should be towards need rather than according to the size of the farm.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the best ways to help medium-sized, or even smaller, farms and industry in Britain as a whole

would be to reduce interest rates? Is he aware that to do that, it will be necessary to bring about a realignment of the pound within the ERM?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend must accept that we have been able to reduce interest rates by 3·5 per cent. because of our membership of the ERM at the present level. I do not agree with him in the change that he seeks, but I hope that he agrees with me that the one way to ensure that interest rates would rise again would be to increase taxation by the 15p which Labour's present policies would do.

Food Hygiene

Mr. Cox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the Consumers Association about improving food hygiene and safety in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maclean: Representatives of the Consumers Association were present on 20 February 1991 at the fourth periodic meeting between my right hon. Friend the Minister and the office-holders of consumer organisations. The next meeting is planned for 25 June 1991.

Mr. Cox: The Minister must be aware of the deep concern of the Consumers Association about the ability of trading standards officers to detect irradiated products, especially if they are publicised in an inadequate and misleading way. What does the hon. Gentleman suggest to trading standards officers? To protect the consumer, why does not the Ministry set up an independent food standards agency?

Mr. Maclean: We have some of the most detailed regulations in Europe. Our standards are among the highest of all the European countries that have irradiated food and our regulations are as detailed as those of other countries. We have much detail on the policing of irradiated food. So far, we have received only one application to irradiate food and that was in respect of herbs and spices. The licence was granted and last week the Ministry published full details of the conditions to which the company must adhere. We already have independent experts who assess food and guarantee food safety. The hon. Gentleman is making yet another promise that a Labour Government will spend more of taxpayers' money on setting up quango after quango.

Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some concern that these food hygiene matters have been carried too far and that they are interfering with the activities of legitimate small organisations, which are unable to cope with the demands made upon them? Will my hon. Friend carefully consider any representations made to him in that regard and take care that he does not drive many valuable small organisations out of business?

Mr. Maclean: That is absolutely correct. In the pursuit of food safety, we must ensure that we do not drive out of business many of the excellent producers of high-quality, tasty food. My hon. Friend does not seem to have been deprived of a good supply of food.

Mr. Ron Brown: Food hygiene and safety are important, so why is the Minister blocking grants to fish processors and curers such as Kelly of Newhaven? Such


companies want to invest in new equipment for a future which, we hope, will bring better herring stocks to this country so that people can benefit.

Mr. Maclean: My Ministry will be happy to consider any specific proposals from the company that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Set-aside Scheme

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on his plans for a one year set-aside scheme.

Mr. Gummer: I shall be inviting applications from farmers so that they can gain the opportunity of entering into the one-year set-aside before the end of next month, which is the due date.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because the scheme must be attractive to farmers, there is a strong case for having a United Kingdom payment over and above the EC proposed payments for set-aside?

Mr. Gummer: I believe that the offer will draw out of farms a sufficient amount of set-aside. I am not prepared to structure a scheme in such a way as to set aside large parts of Britain so that other countries can produce more. There must be comparability across Europe as a whole.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the Governor of the Bank of England can pick up £60,000 out of the Common Market set-aside scheme, surely that means that there is too much money in the budget. Why does not the Minister answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)? Is not it true that, since the day the right hon. Gentleman was appointed to the job, our CAP contributions have gone up by 55 per cent. Yes or no?

Mr. Gummer: It is very flattering that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I control the level of the dollar; indeed, it is one of the most flattering comments that he has made to me. The hon. Gentleman may want to live in a country in which individuals are treated differently by the Government because of class prejudice, but the British people do not—even at the high taxation cost that that would produce.

Milk

Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the future prospects for the United Kingdom milk sector.

Mr. Gummer: In 1990–91, dairy farming remained one of the most profitable sectors of agriculture in the United Kingdom, for all sizes of farm. Removal of the remaining monetary gap will also contribute to improved prospects for the dairy sector; however, the Agriculture Council has also agreed to a cut in member states' quotas. Member states may cut producers' quota as necessary up to 3 per cent. and pay compensation.

Mr. Banks: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that Britain has the best standard of milk in Europe and that the milk marketing board serves our farmers particularly well—not least with a reliable monthly milk cheque? Does my right hon. Friend further

agree that any changes to the milk marketing board should be approved only following a referendum of all our dairy farmers?

Mr. Gummer: The milk marketing board is making its proposals and it believes that changes are necessary. I have welcomed the board's desire to make the system more satisfactory. It must be a matter of concern that, in many recent years, the return to the farmer on milk has been one of the lowest in Europe and the cost to the consumer has been one of the highest in Europe. That must suggest that changes are necessary and those changes are being proposed by the board under its own constitution.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

NATO

Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to meet the leaders of other NATO member states to discuss, inter alia, the membership, structure, functions and policy objectives of the organisation and related matters; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): NATO Heads of State and Government will meet in Rome on 7 and 8 November. Our main task will be to conclude the review of NATO's role, strategy and force structures set in hand by the summit in London last July. Good progress has already been made. The reformed alliance will continue to provide the essential basis for our security in the 1990s.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but may I point out to him that, in Scotland, there is growing concern over what appears to be a piecemeal and fragmented restructuring of the armed forces of all the NATO countries, including the United Kingdom? Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that the rapid reaction force will never be deployed outwith mainland Europe unless and until it receives the specific authority of the United St … United Nations. [Interruption.] I said the United Nations and not the United States as I never want to see young Scots, or young men from anywhere in the United Kingdom, being turned into cannon fodder at the behest of an American President skilfully exploiting the sycophantic support of NATO leaders.

The Prime Minister: Let me say first how much I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom will command the future NATO rapid reaction force. That is a key role for the British Army and one which I think it will perform splendidly, both in the interests of this country arid of NATO. The specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised is quite clear. The purpose of the rapid reaction corps is to defend NATO territory; it is not a signal of a more interventionist NATO approach elsewhere.

Sir Robert McCrindle: When the Prime Minister comes to consider these matters, will he also take into account the enormous advantage of the participation of the United States and Canada in NATO, mapping it out, in the opinion of many of us, as a much more effective medium of western defence than any of the alternatives recommended?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. The presence of north American forces in Europe is absolutely essential; by that I mean US


conventional and nuclear contributions, both of which are irreplaceable. They are here now and I hope, trust and believe that they will be here in the future.

Engagements

Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.

Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister know precisely how much, in pounds and pence, a single old-age pensioner has on which to live for a week? Does he regard it as adequate?

The Prime Minister: It would depend on his individual circumstances: whether he received income support, whether he had any state earnings-related pension supplement or a raft of other special payments.

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. King: Will my right hon. Friend give a pledge to the House that he and his Government will never increase funding for various aspects of Government by plundering the wage packet of the British working man and woman? Will he further compare his Government's spending—[Interruptioni]—spending policies with those alluded to by the Opposition, whose policies of spend, spend, spend —[HON. MEMBERS: "Spund, spund, spund."]—have no regard to how they will be paid for?

The Prime Minister: I believe that people in this country need only look at our record on cutting the direct rate of taxation to be clear about the fact that we would not be in favour of increasing it. The Labour party, by contrast, is in favour of much higher spending, which can be met only by much higher taxation, not just for the well-off, but for those on the standard rate of income tax. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has shown that vividly this morning.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recognise that in their recent comments, both of his Tory predecessors were only trying to help him? Which of them did he find most helpful?

The Prime Minister: The greatest help that this party often receives is from the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Kinnock: That must be why we are 10 points ahead and are winning by-elections. Why will not the Prime Minister tell us? It is a straightforward question—is he closest to the last leader of the Conservative party or to the last but one leader, or is he just piggy in the middle?

The Prime Minister: I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I can tell him that I have no intention of being distracted from the policy on Europe which I have set out clearly and repeatedly in the House.

I shall continue to negotiate in Europe for an outcome that I can safely recommend to the House. It will then be for the House to decide on it.

Mr. Waller: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider what the implications for taxation and public spending would be if the privatisation programme were to come to an end? Furthermore, what would happen if British Telecom, the water industry and the electricity grid were to be renationalised?

The Prime Minister: The privatisation receipts are about £.5·5 billion a year. That is the equivalent of nearly 3p on the standard rate of income tax, so clearly to abandon those receipts would lead either to higher borrowing or to higher taxation. There can be no doubt about that.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Prime Minister would want to be fair. If he is so keen to have everything costed, has he had Majorism costed, or is he merely sending the bill for that to the unemployed?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman plumbs new triviality with each question that he asks. In the past decade, conservatism has delivered a far higher standard of living for the people of this country than ever before and so it will in the next decade.

Sir Ian Stewart: When my right hon. Friend goes to the European Council, will he accept that he carries with him the good wishes of all Conservative Members and our gratitude for the constructive and responsible way in which he has tackled serious and important constitutional issues? Will he take the opportunity to point out to his colleagues in the other European countries that any rapid move to a single currency, before the economies of the various countries in Europe are very much closer in performance, would produce disastrous consequences which would be far more likely to blow the European Community apart than to lead to greater unity?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with every word that my right hon. Friend has said. I have made the point consistently over the past 15 months that until and unless there is proper convergence of the European economies, it would be utter folly even to contemplate a single currency.

Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Loyden: The Prime Minister will be aware of the stand taken by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the threat to ICI. What will the Prime Minister's stance be in the event of a hostile bid being made by Hanson to take over ICI?

The Prime Minister: There has been no such takeover bid and it would, therefore, be entirely inappropriate for me to comment.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at early-day motion 902, which is an all-party motion tabled by, among others, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? It concerns Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray. Through no fault of theirs—whoever's fault it was, they were not on a holiday jaunt—they lost their legs in a tragic accident. With his well-known compassion and concern for individuals who have problems, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will look at the problem with that compassion so that we can come to the right decision, which is to care for the individual who serves this state?

The Prime Minister: This is a very tragic accident. I am sure that the whole House feels that deeply and we offer our sympathy to the guardsmen concerned. The board of inquiry has examined the matter carefully and has reached the conclusion that it was a tragic accident and that no one was culpable for the dreadful affair. I am examining the matter, but I must do so on the basis of legal liability.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree with his predecessor when she said that joining the exchange rate mechanism relegated Ministers to the status of innocent bystanders at an accident? If he agrees, how would he describe himself—as the bystander or the accident?

The Prime Minister: We entered the exchange rate mechanism last year when my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister and I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was right to enter the mechanism then; it is right for us to be members of the mechanism now. I made it absolutely clear at the time that I felt that that was the best way in which to ensure that we not only got inflation on a downward trend, but kept it on a downward trend. We are in the exchange rate mechanism; we are staying in it. In due course, we shall move to the narrow bands.

Q.7 Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list he official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Coombs: In considering local government matters in the light of the appalling record of the past eight years of the Labour administration in Liverpool—the appalling inefficiency, massive debts and uncollected refuse there, and the impending gravediggers' strike—does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition that the Labour council there—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the Prime Minister's responsibility.

Mr. Coombs: —with the statement made yesterday that the council there is merely trying to provide—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Coombs: When considering the reform of local government, does my right hon. Friend agree that the appalling inefficiency of Liverpool should be rate-capped and in future should be avoided by local government reform, or is the statement of the Leader of the Opposition merely pie in the sky?

The Prime Minister: The whole country will observe what has happened in Liverpool over recent years and will be perfectly well aware where the blame for that lies. As the Labour Co-ordinating Committee has written about Labour councils:
They demonstrate as far as the public is concerned, what a Labour Government would be like".

Mr. Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that when considering the future of Britain the volatility of a couple of Prime Ministers is a trivial sideshow compared with the potential volatility of £84 billion sterling hot money as a result of the Government's incompetence? How far can the Prime Minister say that he is confident that there will be no sterling crisis before the next general election?

The Prime Minister: If there were to be a sterling crisis, it would occur only if there were no longer a Conservative Government.

Q.8 Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even marginal increases in taxation can have a serious effect on incentives and that even marginal increases in Government borrowing can have a serious effect on inflation and interest rates and that to increase borrowing and taxation by something like £35 billion would have catastrophic effects on the British economy?

The Prime Minister: There is absolutely no doubt about that. In practice it would mean either dramatically higher borrowing with consequentially much higher interest rates and mortgages, or it would mean up to an extra 15p on the standard rate of income tax to 40p in the pound. With a policy of adding national insurance contributions throughout the income scale, that would make us one of the highest-taxed countries in the industrial world.

Business of the House

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week, please?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 JUNE—Opposition day (15th allotted day). Debate on an Opposition motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats entitled "The government of Liverpool".
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 25 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill.
Motion on the Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 26 JUNE—Debate on the European Community on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The European Community White Paper, July to December 1990 (CM 1457), is relevant.
Motion to amend the Standing Order on European Standing Committees.
THURSDAY 27 JUNE—Debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 28 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 1 JULY—Debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday, 26 June, to consider document No. 4822/91 relating to duties on mineral oils.
[Wednesday 26 June
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document 4822/91 Excise Duties on Mineral Oils
Relevant Report from European Legislation Committee HC 29-xvii (1990–91).]

Mr. Grocott: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to make a statement next week on the continuing problems of the Kurdish people and the Government's safe haven policy? If the Foreign Secretary can make statements abroad about that, we are entitled to have a statement in this House.
Secondly, are we not entitled to have a debate in Government time on the unemployment crisis in view of the record figures? It should not be up to the Opposition to have to raise such issues all the time. It is up to the Government to provide time.
Thirdly, and this is a matter that affects all hon. Members, can we have a statement from a Minister, preferably from the Leader of the House, about the problems that hon. Members face in getting proper answers from Ministers to written questions, particularly in Government Departments where there are executive agencies? It really is not good enough. We knew that agencies would mean a diminution of ministerial

responsibility, but it is not good enough to receive only a holding answer from a Minister when we ask questions on behalf of constituents, and when a proper answer never appears in Hansard. We are entitled to proper answers and the Leader of the House owes it to us to make a statement.
It is your central concern, Mr. Speaker, and that of the Leader of the House to protect the rights of Back Benchers in matters such as Wednesday's debate on Europe. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Back Benchers should be given ample opportunities to contribute to Wednesday's debate, especially his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that it is important that the right hon. Lady should express her views in this House rather than confiding them abroad to American business men?
Finally, in view of the widespread interest and debate on the subject, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on Majorism some time next week. It need not be a long debate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a parliamentary term.

Mr. Grocott: In that case, I shall not repeat it, Mr. Speaker, but the Leader of the House should find time for such a debate.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree that the hon. Gentleman's first point raises an important issue. He knows that the Liaison Committee has recommended that a half day should be given to the issue of aid to refugees, which clearly includes that matter. I knew that that issue would be aired soon and I hope to find time for that debate in the near future because it will give us a useful opportunity to discuss these matters.
The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment made an important and full statement yesterday on many aspects of unemployment, an issue that we have debated on many occasions. As far as I can see, hardly a day goes by in the House without some of my hon. Friends pointing out the real dangers of the Labour party's programme for a national minimum wage and the effect that that would have on unemployment. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no shortage of opportunities for raising that matter, and that we seek every opportunity to compare the two parties' respective policies on employment. It is clear that the Conservative party has the policies that provide long-term employment, while the Labour party's policies would greatly increase unemployment in the short term.
On the hon. Gentleman's third point about answers in the House and agencies, I should like to make the position clear to him. With the exception of those of a confidential or personal nature, all letters from chief executives are placed in the Library of the House and its Public Information Office. In addition, copies of those letters are available to hon. Members, researchers, the media and any other interested parties through the Public Information Office. Some of those letters are very long and detailed. The important point is that the answers are available to the House, to hon. Members and to others outside in the same way as they would be through the columns of Hansard.
The hon. Gentleman's point about the European debate was a complete waste of business questions. He knows very well that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and for you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman was floundering in his last question. The plain fact is that all aspects of the Government's policy under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be fully outlined in the months ahead, not only in speeches all over the country, but in this House and in many other debates. We are only too delighted to take every opportunity to make those contrasts—not least the contrast between expanding public spending programmes which are prudent and within the capacity of the taxpayer to pay, and those which would involve an increase of 15p in the basic rate of tax. We look forward to every opportunity to ram that message home, together with the message that the Labour party has learnt nothing from the mistakes that it made during the last election.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the decision of the South Yorkshire police authority to settle out of court instead of allowing the events which arose from the mass demonstration at the Orgreave coking plant to be tested in the civil courts? Is he aware that to have dealt with the matter in that way is costing a great deal of money to the taxpayers and charge payers of South Yorkshire and that the matter has been stitched up between the Labour-controlled police authority and the lawyers for the claimants? The matter should be debated in the House.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on those issues today because the civil action was entirely a matter between the South Yorkshire police and the individuals involved. We have had several opportunities to debate the much wider issues which arose out of that period. However, I have taken note of what my hon. Friend requested and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Leader of the House aware that the award of £500,000 or more in damages and costs to 39 miners who were injured, maliciously prosecuted and in other ways damaged by the South Yorkshire police is unprecedented in the history of British law? Does he recall that on 19 June 1984 the then Prime Minister and the then Home Secretary, who is now a Commissioner in Brussels, described what happened as "mob rule", that the then Home Secretary said that those charged with riot might face life imprisonment, that the case was tested in the courts and that the courts threw out the charge of riot, and that the men were proved innocent?
Is the Leader of the House aware that the other day when the settlement was made it was clear that in so far as there was violence, it was on the part of the police, and it was admitted during the riot trial that the BBC transposed the film to show stones being thrown before the cavalry charge although the police video confirmed otherwise? Indeed, the ministerial responsibility for what happened was established on 22 July 1985 when I made public the text of the "public order tactical operations manual" which the Home Secretary had approved. This is a matter of ministerial responsibility on which the Home Secretary should make a full statement.

Mr. MacGregor: It is not for me to comment on the allegations. The whole House and the country know that during that period there were some disgraceful episodes and some clear provocation. The police had to handle matters often in conditions that were extremely difficult.

On the specific case of the miners, I have already made it clear that that action was entirely a matter between the South Yorkshire police and the individuals. The right hon. Gentleman knows that all police use of force is governed by the rule of law.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend accept that he made a slip of the tongue in an answer a moment ago? It is not the South Yorkshire police who want the matter settled—it is the South Yorkshire police authority, which is predominantly left-wing Labour-controlled and supported the miners' pickets. The South Yorkshire police and the police from Derbyshire and all over the country had to put up with a disgraceful display of public disorder. They want the matter heard in open court so that their case can be known to the country.

Mr. MacGregor: I accept the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes that it was the South Yorkshire police authority.

Sir David Steel: With regard to next Wednesday's debate on Europe, will the Leader of the House confirm that this Chamber is, to repeat the famous phrase, the heart of Parliament, and that it is therefore a matter for him to make sure that, instead of traipsing round the rubber chicken circuits in the United States, Members of this House who wish to criticise Government policy should do so here in debates? Therefore, it is up to him to persuade his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) to be here to do her duty.

Mr. MacGregor: I have never seen it as the job of the Leader of the House to persuade individual Members to come and speak in particular debates. That would be to move outside my sphere of responsibility. However, I confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that it is an important debate next week and that I have followed the approach of my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), and sought to fix the debate on a motion for the Adjournment. That will enable it to be a European Community debate in which the House will have an opportunity not only to consider the White Paper but to express its views on issues which are expected to be considered at the forthcoming European Council. That is why it is timed as it is. I believe that that will be for the convenience of the House. I think that it will demonstrate the overwhelming support of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the position being taken by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in their approach to the European negotiations.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Would the Leader of the House consider rearranging business in the near future to permit Conservative Members to debate the impact on employment patterns of the introduction of a minimum wage, a jobs tax and a strikers' charter—policies enthusiastically endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition and all Members who take the Labour party Whip?

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am not sure that it is necessary to have a specific debate, but if a slot can be found for one, I will welcome it. However, Government time is limited if we are to rise in reasonable time for the summer recess. My hon. Friend is


entirely right, and we shall take every opportunity to point out the damaging effects on employment and standards of living of those and many other aspects of Labour policies.

Mr. Harry Ewing: May I return to the matter of Orgreave and, in the presence of the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, ask whether the Leader of the House will table a motion next week to refer to the Select Committee on Procedure the case whereby members of the British public can be smeared in the House of Commons and subsequently cleared of any criminal charges by the courts, but the smears remain on the record? Today's announcement relates to a civil matter arising out of the men being cleared of criminal charges. I am certain that the Leader of the House appreciates that the smears against the men and their families by the former Prime Minister, the then Attorney-General, the present junior Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture—the hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean)—and the then Home Secretary still remain on the record. Will the Leader of the House confirm that he is not in favour of members of the British public being smeared by Parliament and cleared in the courts but the smears being allowed to remain?

Mr. MacGregor: That matter does not seem to me to be appropriate for the Select Committee on Procedure.

Sir Michael Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider providing time next week for the Government to explain to the House and to the country why they are not already carrying out the priority proposals being put forward by the Labour party? Could it be that those proposals would cost a further £35 billion?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, in a previous capacity I had the task of costing the Labour party's programme before the last general election. I was struck by two factors. First, the Labour party was absolutely unable to undermine the accuracy of the costings. Secondly, and astonishingly, the figure grew by the month so that there was extra spending above that of the first costing. I suspect that that will happen again and I am sure that the Labour party will be unable to undermine the costings announced today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I agree with my hon. Friend that these are extremely important matters, not only for the House to discuss, but for the country.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Leader of the House will not have a debate, will he ensure that the appropriate Minister comes to the House to make a statement on the state's conduct during the miners' strike, and the collusion that took place between the Government, the judiciary and Mrs. Thatcher's private army, the police—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that we refer to each other by our constituencies.

Mr. Skinner: I said that because she is never here.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must refer to the right hon. Lady by her constituency.

Mr. Skinner: If we can get her here on a fee, we might be able to hear what she has to say, so that we can obliterate her statements about the miners being the enemy within. It is time that the public understood that the state, through the taxpayer, had to fork out £6,000 million so that the ex-Prime Minister could tackle the miners, their communities and their families. It is time that a public inquiry was held so that the whole truth can be revealed.

Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about the matter, he might like to talk to those who occupy the Opposition Front Bench to see whether he can persuade them to hold such a debate. They have many opportunities to arrange full-day debates. The hon. Gentleman might like to see whether they would be willing to have a debate in the time available to the Opposition. I can assure him that we would not be averse to having a debate and going over the issues again.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Bob Cryer: Ministers made statements about the miners, and individual miners were charged—

Mr. Speaker: Order. When I call the hon. Member—if I call him—he will have the opportunity to ask a question. He must not seek to put a question to the Leader of the House from a sedentary position.

Mr. Walker: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that during the debate on the European Community next Wednesday we shall have the opportunity to refer to the importance of the raspberry growing industry in Tayside and the dangers that it faces from dumping by eastern European countries? It is probable that some hon. Members, and possibly some Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers, as well as some in the Treasury, do not fully understand the importance of that industry to Scotland in particular and to the United Kingdom generally. There must not be barter—we must not give the industry away to try to persuade eastern Europeans to become democrats.

Mr. MacGregor: I of course recognise my hon. Friend's great interest in these matters and I know of the importance of the raspberry industry to his constituency and to that part of Scotland. I can assure him that the Government recognise it, too. I think that I told my hon. Friend previously that when I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I tried on several occasions at this time of the year to take steps through the European Community to help the industry. I can confirm that if my hon. Friend were called to speak in the debate it would be relevant for him to raise the matters to which he has referred this afternoon.

Mr. John Garrett: On a domestic matter, on most mornings this week there have been six to eight Select Committees or Standing Committees sitting in public. At the same time, on the front door, as it were, at St. Stephen's entrance, where the public might want to enter the Palace, there is a notice stating that the public are not admitted without an appointment. Can the Leader of the House make a proposal that would make this place rather more welcoming and voter-friendly than it is at present?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter with me. I should like to look into it, and I will write to him after I have done so.

Sir Jim Spicer: I do not much care who initiates a debate on Liverpool, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that whoever replies to it from the Government Front Bench understands that the matter is no longer for Liverpool and Liverpool alone, which has been governed by incompetent and ineffective Labour moderates for the past four years? It is a national matter and in the interests of the people of Liverpool something must be done about it.

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, the debate on Monday is in the name of the Liberal Democrats. I am sure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I know that they are not here now, but I was going to say that I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are very pleased that the subject has been chosen for debate on Monday. I agree with my hon. Friend that the matter is not confined to the government of Liverpool. The slide to anarchy in Liverpool demonstrates to the country generally the dangers of militancy—in fact, it is not militancy that we are facing at the moment—and the dangers of so-called "moderate" government on the part of a local authority. I think that my hon. Friend is right to say that, while the issue is the government of Liverpool, there are much wider national repercussions.

Mr. John P. Smith: Can the Leader of the House find time before the Luxembourg summit to debate the urgent matter of the banana protocol under the Lome convention? Unless we can reach an agreement soon which guarantees the price of Caribbean bananas and access to the United Kingdom economy, many jobs will be lost in my constituency. If an agreement is not reached, the economy of the Windward Islands will be destroyed and there could be a dramatic increase in the international drug trade. In Kingston in 1987 the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), promised the Caribbean people that their interests would be protected after 1992. I hope that the House will have a chance to implement that promise.

Mr. MacGregor: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) a moment ago in relation to the raspberry industry, that matter could be appropriately raised in the debate on Wednesday. The purpose of Wednesday's debate is not just to look at the issues that will come up in the European Council but to look at developments over the past six months and to have a wide-ranging debate on the EEC.

Sir Peter Emery: My right hon. Friend announced that we would be dealing with Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill on Tuesday. Will he confirm that that will be the occasion of an experiment in terms of the paperwork for Lords amendments? I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will pay attention to the new procedure on that day to see whether it is helpful to the House and to the progress of business. We need to ensure that that is properly publicised.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend as Chairman of the Procedure Committee for doing just that. He is right to say that we shall be having a trial run of the recommendation on Lords amendments which the

Procedure Committee thought would be helpful. I hope that those hon. Members who are listening to this exchange will consider how the matter is tackled on Tuesday and let my hon. Friend and me know what they feel about the change.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen the report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys showing that 1 minion people are missing from the electoral register, which is related to the development and operation of the poll tax? That is particularly serious among attainers, those coming up to 18—who should be appearing on the electoral register for the first time. Should not hon. Members of all people debate that matter urgently?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that the two are unconnected.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer about putting executive agencies' replies in Hansard? Will he remember that those agencies are run by civil servants and are accountable directly to the Public Accounts Committee and that replies should be in Hansard even if a fuller letter is subsequently sent to an hon. Member?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that there are problems about that because sometimes the replies are lengthy. We need to allow a little more time. That is a matter which can be looked at again when we have had sufficient experience to see what the demand is.

Mr. Tony Banks: We have a number of debates on the armed forces coming up next week. Please may we have an Adjournment debate on the police which would give us the opportunity to raise not only the incidents at Orgreave but similar incidents at Wapping? A number of Opposition Members were accused of all sorts of things by Conservative Members when we gave the House the benefit of our eye witness accounts. We saw the police thuggery at Orgreave and Wapping. Opposition Members are unequivocal in condemning violence, whether it is committed by pickets or by the police, but not one word of criticism do we ever hear for police thuggery from Tory Ministers or Back Benchers.

Mr. MacGregor: We are having the debates on the armed forces because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, I am obliged to find three days during the year for such debates. Because of the Gulf crisis and the need to deal with a great deal of legislation, it was not possible to have them earlier. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says about a debate on the police, but it would help if acknowledgement were sometimes given to the immensely difficult tasks that the police carry out in difficult circumstances on many occasions in protecting the public.

Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend will recall that in 1982 the Government brought before the House proposals that would allow local authorities to charge a flat rate for school .transport. He will know that at that time Kent county council published plans which would have allowed all parents to benefit, whether their children lived 2·9 miles or 3·1 miles from the school, and that that proposal was thrown out by the other place. In


the light of the Audit Commission's report, will my right hon. Friend find time to allow the House to debate school transport once again?

Mr. MacGregor: I have not seen the Audit Commission's report, but I shall certainly look at it. Frankly, I do not think that there will be an opportunity to debate that matter in Government time before the summer recess. Looking at the commitments ahead, it will he difficult enough to fit everything in. However, there are other opportunities available, such as an Adjournment debate, for my hon. Friend to raise that matter.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House urgently arrange a public transport debate, which would enable right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to discuss Government transport policy, particularly in respect of investment in the railway system? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is intense concern about the delay and, it is feared, the inevitable sabotaging of the modest West Yorkshire electrification scheme because of the Government's refusal to give it loan approval? That feeling has been intensified by the leaking of news today that the Government are to make a considerable investment in the rail system for London and the south-east. All of that smacks of double standards. Will the Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for Transport to give the go-ahead to the West Yorkshire scheme, which is badly needed for the jobs and regional investment that it would bring?

Mr. MacGregor: The Government, through British Rail, are investing record sums in the railway system, and a good deal of the investment to which the hon. Gentleman refers—for example, in relation to the channel tunnel— will benefit the whole country, not just London and the south-east. On Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the possibility of a further increase in British Rail investment. It is unlikely that we shall find time for a debate before the summer recess, but it is open to the Opposition to choose subjects on their own Supply days.

Mr. John Browne: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to early-day motion 967?
[That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of all papers held by the Secretary of State for Defence relating to the Board of Inquiry instituted to investigate the circumstances of the explosion at the Suffield Range, Canada, on 7th July 1989, which grieviously injured three young Grenadier Guardsmen, Austin Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey.]
I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend also to early day motion 776, to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, reported at column 134 of Hansard on 3 June, and to that made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon. Both statements referred to the accident as tragic, but as one for which no one could be blamed. Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware that not only was the board of inquiry not asked to investigate, but it called no evidence whatever in investigating why the shell had lain in a non-impact area of a live firing range for

six years? That was a serious error, and such statements just do not wash. May the House please have an early debate on early-day motion 967 so that we can be told the truth?

Mr. MacGregor: It is not for me to comment on the substance of that matter, but I heard the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternon. It will be possible for my hon. Friend to raise the matter during the debate on Monday 1 July.

Mr. David Winnick: While I am pleased that justice is being done in respect of compensation for miners, a television programme will be broadcast tonight in which the most senior officer in the Grenadier guards will say that he believes that the three guardsmen concerned—one of whom, Sean Povey, is a constituent of mine—should receive compensation. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the strong feeling which exists on both sides of the House and which is expressed in early-day motion 902.
[That this House calls on the Prime Minister, as a matter of urgency, to review the decision taken by the Ministry of Defence into the case of the three guardsmen who suffered the loss of both legs and other injuries in July 1989 when they were engaged in a training exercise; deplores the continuing refusal of the Ministry to pay any compensation at all; and urges the Prime Minister to realise that an injustice has therefore been done to Sean Povey, Adrian Hicks and John Ray, which should be righted as quickly as possible.]
Why is it that the three guardsmen concerned, who have been crippled for life, should suffer the additional stress of not knowing whether or not they will win their court case? For heaven's sake, let us have some compassion from the Government.

Mr. MacGregor: Solicitors acting for the three soldiers are considering the question of negligence. To enable them to do so, the Ministry of Defence has already released a summary of the board of inquiry and will shortly release the range standing orders. The Minister has also stated that it will be willing to consider any further requests for information. I repeat that it will be possible for right hon. and hon. Members to raise that matter in the debate on Monday week.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend announced that the Government will next week move an amendment to the procedures relating to European Standing Committees. Will he indicate whether that tells the House that the Government are, in some rather underhand way, seeking to reverse the decisions taken by a European Standing Committee relating to patent law and the pharmaceutical industry? If they are, that is despicable and totally unjustified.

Mr. MacGregor: No, the point is fairly technical. As I have said, I wish to have a review at the end of the Session of how the European Standing Committees have gone. I have been discussing them fairly regularly with members of the Committees and, broadly, they have been going extremely well. However, a number of matters have arisen which I am prepared to look into. The subject that we are discussing next week is very technical and my hon. Friend will see that it is on the Order Paper. It relates to an anomaly which has emerged—if a Committee comes to no


conclusion on an issue, it is not possible to report back to the House. The amendment has been tabled simply to deal with that, as has happened on one occasion.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the slow catastrophe being suffered by the peoples of Iraq? Six months after the bombing, people are suffering and dying as a result of those bombs. Will he give special attention in that debate to the Shia peoples, who are out of range of the television cameras and in deadly peril from Saddam Hussein's forces? Is it not about time that the United Nations and the coalition finished the job that we started?

Mr. MacGregor: Without commenting on the matters of substance that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it is unlikely that it will be possible to find time for a wide-ranging debate on those issues, although one aspect, on aid to refugees, is being recommended for debate on Estimates day, as I have already said, and I hope to find time for that shortly.

Mr. Richard Tracey: May I urge my right hon. Friend to consider an urgent debate on the burden of taxation on the average wage earner? He will be aware that there have been some costings of policy ideas coming from various quarters of this House, especially from the Opposition Benches, showing that it could cost the average wage earner more than an extra £20 a week in income tax. My right hon. Friend will agree that this House should consider the effect that that would have both on prospective growth and in terms of a possible brain drain.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree that an additional £20—or 15 pence in the pound, which is another way of putting it —would have a substantial effect on growth, the brain drain and incentives generally, and I believe that it would be strongly resisted by many people in this country if they knew that it was in prospect. I therefore agree with my hon. Friend that it will be important to have opportunities in the House for the programmes that lead to a tax burden of a further 15p in the pound to be thoroughly explored, although I do not know that we shall have a specific debate.

Mr. Cryer: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 963 on the regrading of nurses, and ask for a statement next week, in view of the fact that 40,000 outstanding regrading payments are due to nurses from 1988 and that 150 of them are in Bradford?
[That this House notes with great concern that nationally 40,000 nurses are still awaiting re-grading appeals about pay scales awarded three years ago, that over 150 nurses are affected in Bradford; and expresses outrage that Dr. Mark Baker, Chief Executive of the Bradford Hospitals Trust, should have received by contract, a rapid re-grading with a 10 per cent. salary increase to £66,000 per annum, free car and a £5,000 performance bonus linked to closure, cut-backs and sackings; and condemns this class-ridden policy, ,for the National Health Service.]
Those nurses were outraged at the recent 10 per cent. increase given to the manager of the new Bradford national health service trust—which, as the Leader of the House knows, is a step towards privatisation of the national health service—by which his salary will increase to £66,000 and he will get a £5,000 performance bonus for closing hospitals, closing a baby unit and sacking 300 workers. Nurses and other NHS workers feel outraged at

that preferential treatment. We would like a statement next week so that the Leader of the House can set his face against that class-ridden policy.

Mr. MacGregor: I think that some people feel outraged when the policy of NHS trust hospitals is described as leading to privatisation from the NHS. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is perfectly untrue. However, as regards the substance of the early-day motion, I well understand his remarks about nurses and Ministers have already emphasised that they wish clinical regrading appeals at all levels to be heard quickly and fairly. The obstacle to achieving that has been the unions' insistence on retaining very complex procedures. The salaries of chief executives of NHS trusts have already been discussed in the House. The level of their salaries is a matter for individual NHS trust boards to decide.

Mr. James Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend—as a former Secretary of State for Education and Science—call a debate as a matter of urgency to discuss the appalling education conditions in Labour-controlled Lambeth? Is he aware that headmasters in the borough have appealed to the Department to help before irreparable damage is done to the children? Does he agree that grant-maintained status will be one way forward for parents there?

Mr. MacGregor: To take the second point first, my hon. Friend is right—that is one option available to some of the very good schools currently suffering from Lambeth council's administration.
As for my hon. Friend's first point, he probably knows that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is meeting representatives of Lambeth council this very afternoon to discuss education in the borough. We must wait to see what comes out of that meeting before deciding whether it would be appropriate to report to the House.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not a question of money. Lambeth is spending 17 per cent. less than its standard spending assessment on education. It is, I think, a question of the council's sheer inability to operate sound financial systems and proper administrative procedures.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Is it not about time the Leader of the House organised a proper debate on the telecommunications industry? Virtually no Government statements have been made since the statement on 5 March by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. During the ensuing period of deafening silence, GEC Plessey Telecommunications plc in Coven try has announced 267 more redundancies, bringing the total number of job losses in that one firm in the past three years to more than 2,500.
The Leader of the House may reply that he will refer that point to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. If he does, will he at least ensure that the DTI replies to me? Like most Opposition Members—and, probably, most Conservative Members as well—I am getting fed up with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman is becoming a bottomless postbox. Every week we make our requests; they go into the postbox, and then disappear. We never receive any replies from the Departments concerned.

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the point of business questions is to discuss next week's business, and my responsibility is to decide what it should be. It is up to hon. Members to pursue the


substance of their questions. It is entirely possible for the hon. Gentleman to approach Ministers and Departments directly—he should not feel that he must always do so through me.

Sir Alan Glyn: My right hon. Friend has said that there will be service debates next week. Would it be in order to raise in those debates the situation in Kuwait and the question of secure areas for the Kurds?

Mr. MacGregor: The debates will concern the armed services generally, but it may be possible to raise those aspects in one of them.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Leader of the House aware of the anxiety and depth of feeling among ICI employees—not least in my constituency—about the continuing threat of a hostile Hanson bid against that important enterprise? Will he respond to yesterday's dignified and impressive lobby of Members of Parliament by employees from all ICI's north-west sites —who feel that the Government have adopted a do-nothing approach—by at least arranging a statement next week? The matter is of great concern to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was present at Prime Minister's Question Time. If he was, he will have heard my right hon. Friend say that no takeover bid had been announced. It would be inappropriate to comment on what is an entirely hypothetical situation.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that early-day motion 921 on the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas has been signed by no fewer than 139 right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House?
[That this House believes that the Gurkhas have a unique record of service in the British Army and loyalty to the British Crown, that their qualities of adaptability and devotion to duty will still be required in the defence of Britain's interests in an uncertain world in the future; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to confirm that the Gurkha Brigade will continue to have a worthwhile and viable future in the British Army as previously declared by the Right honourable Member for Ayr, the former Secretary of State for Defence on 22nd May 1989.]
Will he suggest to the Secretary of State for Defence that he make a statement next week to the effect that the brigade will have a viable and worthwhile future in the British Army, which was the assurance given by his predecessor in a statement on 22 May 1989, or, if not, give a similar assurance in the Army debate on Monday 1 July?

Mr. MacGregor: I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the fine record of the Gurkhas, as is made clear in the early-day motion. The Secretary of State for Defence made it clear in his statement on 4 June that consultations were taking place within the Army on the future structure of regiments and corps. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be possible to make statements about the future of individual units in advance of that process being completed.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the 140 redundancies announced at the Leyland-Volvo bus manufacturing plant in Workington, arising out of deregulation, privatisation, cuts in revenue support and cuts in bus grant—in effect, the destruction of the British bus industry—may we have a debate on those issues, which are causing much concern in my constituency?

Mr. MacGregor: There are, of course, other ways in which those matters can be raised in the House. I cannot find time for a debate in Government time on those specific issues before the summer recess because we have many other matters to which to attend.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: There is great interest in the continuing discussions on the GATT round, particularly in relation to the multi-fibre arrangement. My right hon. Friend will be aware that many people in my constituency and throughout the Yorkshire textile industry are watching the negotiations carefully. In view of their importance, will my right hon. Friend find time soon for a debate on the progress of those discussions?

Mr. MacGregor: I have commented on many occasions on the GATT round and its importance for the textile industry, and I assure my hon. Friend that I well understand that. The Government are aware of the industry's wish to minimise the uncertainty and of the need to agree arrangements for the future of international trade in textiles before the current multi-fibre arrangement expires this year. As my hon. Friend will know, the European Community has proposed an interim extension of the current MFA to the end of 1992. I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry my hon. Friend's desire for a statement, but perhaps we should wait for the most appropriate time in the progress of the talks for that to be done.

Mr. Peter Shore: If next Wednesday's debate on the European Community is to be really worth while, it is bound to concentrate on the forthcoming summit meeting in Luxembourg. That being so, will the right hon. Gentleman make certain that the latest version of the draft treaties on political union and on economic and monetary union are available in the English language in the Library so that hon. Members in all parts of the House know precisely what propositions of a federal kind are now being placed before us?

Mr. MacGregor: I appreciate that, as always, the texts are changing as the negotiations proceed. I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will, of course, be taking part in the debate.

Mr. Robin Squire: As my right hon. Friend is aware, we invariably have an annual debate on the Government's public expenditure proposals. Would he consider a small constitutional innovation—using the usual channels, as I judge that there is mutual interest on both sides of the House—to debate the Labour party's policies, together with the Government's spending policies, so that Opposition Members can advertise the annual minimum extra cost of £35 billion and we can seek to demonstrate how that will be paid for, either through more borrowing or through taxation?

Mr. MacGregor: There should not be much difficulty about that. In any debates on tax and economic matters, and on matters concerned with employment, unemployment and industry, it is relevant for hon. Members to comment on alternative policies and proposals. Indeed, I recall that in various economic debates in 1986 and 1987, when I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I spent a considerable time costing Labour's alternatives.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Leader of the House satisfied that a single day's debate on Europe will be adequate to explore the full range and diversity of views on the Tory Benches, never mind any comments that Opposition Members might wish to make? The debate should take place on a substantive resolution so that Tory unity on the issue can be tested on a vote. Will the Prime Minister be leading from the front in that debate so that the fudge that he is developing on the single currency can be fully explored, debated and tested?

Mr. MacGregor: It is the normal procedure to have a one-day debate. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will lead for the Government in that debate—a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister often does so in such debates. A Treasury Minister will deal with the Treasury aspects.
As for a substantive motion, we are following the recommendations of the Procedure Committee on the format for these debates. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) talked about that a short time ago, when he said:
In future, such debates might be renamed simply `European Community debates' and would give the House an opportunity to express its views on issues that are expected to be considered at European Council meetings."—[Official Report, 28 June 1990; Vol. 175, c. 530.]
We are following that procedure. I believe that an Adjournment motion is the proper way to proceed.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that one day will be ample time in which to demonstrate that the vast majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends are wholly behind the Government's approach to these negotiations.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow there will be a debate on local councils and the provision of council services? Will he use his considerable influence to ensure that at least one Opposition Militant Member of Parliament is present so that we can establish for whom Militant would vote in the Liverpool, Walton by-election?

Mr. MacGregor: I am afraid that I have no influence over the Militants—nor, it seems, have many Labour Members. I cannot tell what will happen tomorrow. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to develop his point in that debate.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Leader of the House join me in deploring the increasing tendency of some Ministers to decline to meet hon. Members on legitimate matters? Does not the right hon. Gentleman find it unacceptable that the appropriate Scottish Office Minister has refused to meet me to discuss the circumstances of the death of an eight-year-old girl in an accident on a roadway in the village of Bargeddie, notwithstanding the fact that a petition signed by more than 1,000 people was presented to the House?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should deplore rumours that the Secretary of State for Health has

declined to meet on 8 July, the anniversary of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, the all-party group led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and others to discuss an important matter? Surely the right hon. Gentleman will discourage Ministers from living in ivory towers.

Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Ministers certainly do not live in ivory towers. They spend a great deal of their time not only going around the country, discussing issues and meeting people, but meeting deputations of hon. Members from all parties. It must be for Ministers to decide individual cases. I do not know of the two matters that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be enough time in Monday's debate on Liverpool to discuss all the matters contained in early-day motion 992 and everything else that has gone wrong in four years of so-called moderate control in Liverpool?
[That this House condemns the fact that after four years of so-called moderate Labour rule, Liverpool has more than 5,500 council dwellings standing empty, representing misery for thousands of families and a loss in rent of £4·5 million per year, uncollected rent arrears of £25 million, rate arrears of f22 million, absenteeism amongst the workforce the equivalent of 1,200 full-time employees being paid for doing no work for the council at all, has proved so incompetent that it has failed to claim millions of pounds in Government grant, has so little control of its finances that the 1988–89 accounts understated their spending by nearly £17 million, and has so failed the people of Liverpool that rubbish is piled high in the streets, whilst the two Labour parties bicker about who is most to blame.]
In particular, will there be time to debate the conduct of entertainment licensing by that Labour-controlled authority? As my right hon. Friend knows, entertainment licensing involves a great deal of money as well as the success, or failure, of many businesses. It has become widely known in Liverpool that the conduct of these affairs by the Liverpool Labour group can be described only as corruption deep inside that group.

Mr. MacGregor: I fear that half a day on Monday will not be enough time to explore all the issues that my hon. Friend would like to raise. Often, there are not enough opportunities to do so because of the pressure of time. It will be possible to raise all these matters in tomorrow's debate. If it is convenient for my hon. Friend to be here, he may like to elaborate on his point then.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is it not an outrage that the poll tax payers of south Yorkshire should now have to pay £500,000 in compensation for what was a military operation organised by the Home Office? Why should that burden fall solely on south Yorkshire? I was an eye witness to much of what happened on the picket lines, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Is the Leader of the House aware that often a brother among the police faced a brother among the miners, and that there was very little trouble with the Yorkshire police and very little violence? The violence came from imported police —mainly from the metropolitan authority. That is why the inquiry has been held in silence, why the facts have not


been published, and why the costs should be borne by all taxpayers rather than by south Yorkshire alone. As miners will tell the right hon. Gentleman, the police there had a very good record. So let us have an inquiry now.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that those are questions for me to answer in relation to next week's business.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon for a debate on the state of the licensed trade? He will recall that, following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the brewing industry, some well-intentioned legislation was introduced but, unfortunately, there have been some side effects. Some licensees have found themselves in a difficult position and the trade is calling for a general review of the policy. Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that we might have a debate on that topic?

Mr. MacGregor: I think it unlikely that I shall be able to find time for a debate on that topic in Government time, although it may be possible for it to be raised in other ways.
We are aware of concern about the difficulties currently facing some pub tenants. As my hon. Friend knows, we have already responded to pub tenants' concerns by introducing legislation to give them security of tenure. In 1993, the Director General of Fair Trading will be reviewing all the measures that the Government have introduced, when their effectiveness can be assessed. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise matters well in advance of that, however, opportunities are available to him.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Is the Leader of the House aware of the report placed in the Library last week on criminal records? It promotes a single centralised system, which would have serious civil liberties implications. The Lindop report said that that could be done by administrative fiat, without Parliament even being told or having an opportunity to debate the matter. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we do, indeed, have an opportunity to debate it before any such decision is made?

Mr. MacGregor: I am not familiar with the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I shall discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is specifically Conservative legislation on competitive tendering which now offers the ordinary people of Liverpool the chance, at last, to have their bins emptied and their rubbish collected? Has he noticed similarities between Labour local government in Liverpool in action—with bins not being emptied and threats that the dead will not be buried—and the demise of the last Labour Government in 1978–79, when we suffered from a similar pattern of activity? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the House to have a debate on competitive tendering so that the Labour party can eat its words on that subject, as on so many others?

Mr. MacGregor: I would go further than my hon. Friend. It is interesting to note that the one way that Liverpool council has been able to find out of its dilemmas of mismanagement, and all the other difficulties that have afflicted Liverpool, has been to take advantage of

Conservative policies. Conservative policies and Conservative actions are now enabling that council to begin to clear up the mess. It is significant that those same policies were opposed throughout by the Labour party. The matter therefore goes further than my hon. Friend suggests, although I agree with him, and he will be able to develop his argument both in the debate tomorrow and on Monday.

Mr. John Hughes: Following the remarks of the Leader of the House on British Rail investment, may I draw to his attention early-day motion 998?
[That this House views with the utmost concern the fact that the plans for and the mock-ups of the new generation of Class 323 cross-county advanced electrical trains with an expected 30 year service life and which are currently on display at the Tickford factory in Coventry, fail to make adequate provision for disabled people; notes that the three-car, 289 seater trains provide only one wheelchair place per unit; further notes that access from the platform to the train is made needlessly difficult for independent disabled people as passengers have to climb two steps from the platform to board the train; condemns the glaring omission of toilet facilities for disabled people; deeply regrets that no real consultation with disabled peoples' organisations had taken place; and therefore calls upon British Rail, as a matter of urgency, to consult fully all relevant organisations of disabled people with a view to introducing acceptable and user-friendly standards and provisions for disabled passengers and wheelchair users in Class 323 trains and in all its new rolling stock; in particular urges the provision of toilets for disabled people in all British Rail passenger trains; further considers that disabled people deserve a far better deal from British Rail; and recognises that this requires financial support from Central Government as well as legislation making decent provision for disabled people mandatory.]
Clearly British Rail is not investing in provisions for the disabled. The new 323 train is a glaring example of that. Will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity for a debate on discrimination against disabled people?

Mr. MacGregor: I have seen the early-day motion. I understand that British Rail's policy is to aim to provide access for disabled people on all new rolling stock, with wheelchair-accessible toilets on all long-distance routes. On short routes, the policy is to cater for toilet access for disabled passengers at stations. Much remains to be done, but the needs of disabled passengers are now considered carefully before any investment.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied on reflection that the type of debate which he said might be available to my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) would be of sufficient length to bring out the seriousness of the issues to which they alluded? Does he agree that it would need a lengthy debate—and one which, by its nature, is in the Government's gift—to emphasise the fact that, although it is now well established that Labour's plans would lead to a minimum increase of 15p in the pound in the basic rate of income tax, by the time that is taken into account, together with its pledges to increase national insurance contributions, we should be facing a marginal rate of income tax of about 50p in the


pound? Would not a major Government debate give the public the opportunity to understand the implication of voting Labour into office?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend, but there will be opportunities for such major debates inside and outside the House. However, I would go further: if one considers the document on many aspects of policy which was published by the Government this morning, one will see that there are opportunites to explore parts of that in many debates other than purely economic ones.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will there be a statement by the Secretary of State for Defence in the next few days about the order for tanks for the British Army, which is of great concern to my constituents? Or is the further delay explained by the fact that the Government are still looking for alternatives? Are they not the only Government in western Europe who, instead of buying from their own producers, would look for alternatives in other countries?

Mr. MacGregor: I understand the importance of the matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has already made it clear that the Government intend to make a further announcement before the end of the month. That is not very far away, so the hon. Gentleman can be sure that there will be a statement in the near future, and certainly before the end of the month.

Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that last Thursday during a point of order I raised with you the early day motion sponsored by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), which included the precise and lull home address of Councillor Mike Crosby. At that time, you rightly said that the text of an early-day motion is the responsibility of any right hon. or hon. Member who sponsors it. I ask you to reflect on that ruling, bearing in mind the extremely considered letter which was dated yesterday and sent to you by Councillor Crosby and which you should have received today. In that letter, Councillor Crosby rightly maintains that the inclusion of his lull address in no way added to the substantive text of the motion. Indeed, he and others regard the inclusion of his address as an incitement to other to intrude on his and his family's—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has never been the practice of the House for correspondence to the Speaker to be revealed by another hon. Member.

Mr. Madden: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on the rules concerning early-day motions? It would be extremely helpful if you could consider introducing a rule whereby the Table Office would advise right hon. and hon. Members who intended to include in such a motion the address of a private individual that it would be unwise to do so. I ask you to consider that, bearing in mind the important point made by Councillor Crosby in his letter to you.

Mr. Speaker: I do not underestimate that point in any way. I am certainly considering the councillor's letter. My problem is that we have freedom of speech in this place and it is not for the Chair to censor motions provided that they are in order. I can only repeat that hon. Members who use their freedom of speech in this place should do so with great discretion.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you would direct the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) to give me an apology today, and now. I have just been made aware from what he said that this is the second time that he has raised on the Floor of the House the early-day motion tabled in my name. At no time during the past few days has the hon. Gentleman attempted to contact me by letter or by telephone or through the Whips' Office or any of the agencies in the House.
I left the Chamber 10 minutes ago after my part in business questions, and after performing the usual courtesy of remaining in the Chamber to hear the hon Members who followed me. I found a note from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) informing me that he intended to raise this matter today. Had you, Mr. Speaker, called me last today, I should have had no warning of the point of order. Had I been absent from the Chamber, and in and around my Dartford constituency, I should not have known of it.
On another point, further to the point of order, there is no question that among Opposition Members—this will be made crystal clear to Councillor Crosby—there is no dissent from any part of the early-day motion except the


reference to the address. That clearly means that there is no support for Councillor Crosby and his actions from Opposition Members.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman was given notice that this matter would be raised, that is in line with our conventions.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, it will take time.

Mr. Skinner: No, it will not take a second.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I will call Mr. Banks first, just in case.

Mr. Banks: The point that I want to make, further to the point of order, is that it is all very well for the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) to talk about courtesies inside the House. I should have thought that the House should afford certain courtesies to people outside. To put someone's address in an early-day motion can be interpreted only as maliciousness on the part of the hon. Member for Dartford. Of course we have free speech, but we also have rules about early-day motions. There is not absolute licence here. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the rules that should now be applied is that we do not put people's personal addresses in contentious early-day motions.

Mr. Speaker: It would not be for me to impose a rule on the House. That would have to be done through the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a bit hypocritical of Opposition Members to raise that matter, bearing in mind that the Labour party in my constituency has taken photographs of my home, which was very unwelcome for security reasons. Opposition Members should put their own house in order before they start criticising others.

Mr. Skinner: Just by chance, I was in Dartford last Friday. As the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) knows, I was involved in a public meeting there and met Councillor Mike Crosby. The people there told me about the early-day motion—indeed, they have a copy. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said, it is believed by some people to be wrong to print the name and address of the person concerned, I must make the point that the motion concerned the non-payment of poll tax. The truth is that Councillor Mike Crosby had paid his poll tax and I saw all the receipts, so the early-day motion is wrong.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing further to add. I made my position clear in terms of order. I have no authority to change the rules of the House. The rules must be changed by the Select Committee on Procedure. There is no more to be said.

Mr. Madden: The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) gave the impression that I had not given him notice of the point of order. I left a note for him on the message board at 2.15 pm today saying that I intended to raise the matter on a point of order. I also tabled early-day motion 972 about the matter, asking the hon. Member for Dartford to withdraw his early-day motion and to apologise. I am sad that he has not taken the opportunity to do so today.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Ordered,
That the Lords Amendments to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 12, 31, 1 to 11, 13 to 30, 32 and 33.—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

After Clause 59

Lords amendment: No. 12, to insert the following new clause—

Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland.

(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person to be known as the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland (in this Act referred to as "the Independent Assessor").
(2) A person shall not be eligible for appointment as the Independent Assessor if he is, or at any time during the period of twenty years ending with the date of the appointment has been, a serving member of Her Majesty's forces.
(3) Schedule (Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Independent Assessor.
(4) The Independent Assessor—

(a) shall keep under review the procedures adopted by the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland ("the GOC") for receiving, investigating and responding to relevant complaints;
(b) shall receive and investigate any representations concerning those procedures;
(c) may investigate the operation of those procedures in relation to any particular complaint or group of complaints;
(d) may require the GOC to review any particular case or group of cases in which the Independent Assessor considers any of those procedures to have operated inadequately; and
(e) may make to the GOC recommendations concerning any inadequacies in those procedures, including inadequacies in the way in which they operate in relation to any particular complaint, group of complaints or description of complaints.

(5) In this section "relevant complaint" means a complaint relating to the behaviour of any member of Her Majesty's forces under the command of the GOC, other than—

(a) any complaint which has been referred by the GOC to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and not remitted by the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the GOC to be dealt with by him; and
(b) any complaint relating to a matter in respect of which a claim for compensation has been made under section 62 below or which is the subject of proceedings involving a claim for compensation which have been instituted in any court.

(6) The GOC shall—

(a) furnish such information;
(b) disclose such documents; and
(c) provide such assistance,

as the Independent Assessor may reasonably require for the purpose of the performance of his functions.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move amendment (a), as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in subsection (4), at end insert—

`(f) may, in the interests of justice, investigate any relevant complaints or groups of relevant complaints.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 31.

Mr. McNamara: Although the appointment of an independent assessor of military complaints procedures in Northern Ireland represents a step forward in finding a form of procedure for complaints against the Army, this


step is very limited and does not in any way go as far as the tentative scheme proposed by the Opposition when the matter was discussed in Committee.
There are a number of major difficulties with the Government's proposal. First, the assessor will deal not with individual complaints but with the procedures for handling complaints. He has no power to investigate complaints, to give findings or to order recompense. His powers are therefore much more limited than those of the already agreed, but nevertheless limited powers of the independent Police Complaints Commission.
Judging by the duties laid down in Lords amendment No. 12 on the independent assessor, the Government appear to conceive the role of the assessor primarily as an adviser to the General Officer Commanding and to the Secretary of State. His ability to act independently in favour of an individual complainant is constrained by the powers proposed in the Bill. He is very much held at arm's length by the nature of his remit from the investigation of the complaint.
That is reflected in his limited term of office and the variety of reasons for which the Secretary of State can remove him from office. Bearing in mind the controversial nature of investigations into the security forces in Northern Ireland—for example, Army personnel do not appear at coroners' inquests, do not give sworn evidence and are not subject to cross-examination—it does not augur well for the independence of the new office. However, I hope and trust that I will be proved wrong. Decisions on appointment and removal of the independent assessor will be made by the same Minister whose conduct could come under scrutiny.
The debate in the other place showed that the Government assume that the authority of the assessor will derive from his ability to report to Parliament and from the co-operation of the General Officer Commanding. It is automatically assumed in the Government's proposals that there will always be full co-operation between the GOC and the independent assessor. However, the fact that the assessor is meant to be independent raises the possibility of conflict among Ministers, the GOC and the assessor. There are no proper grounds for believing that in those circumstances the independent assessor will be paramount.
Amendment (a) seeks to strengthen the position of the assessor. We urge that he may, in the interests of justice, investigate any relevant complaints or groups of relevant complaints. That would give him an ultimate power to intervene and investigate complaints himself if the interests of the circumstances and of justice so require. In that way, he would be able to act more directly in resolving the issue and be seen by complainants as being more directly involved in their problems.
Lord Colville's report was cited in the other place in support of the Government's amendment. However, while Lord Colville's proposals can be cited in support of the Government's version and procedures, it cannot be used to reject other options. His recommendation was tentative, although his insistence on the importance of the issue of having a viable system of complaints against possible Army or security forces misbehaviour was not.
Lord Colville points out that an informal and rapid procedure for handling complaints is the best way of

dealing with many grievances. No one would deny that, but there are always cases that cannot be easily handled in that way, where independent formal investigations may be necessary to alleviate public concern in matters which perhaps do not amount to specific and direct criminal offences.
There are certain cases which are not merely of direct concern to the people involved but which have substantial implications for public policy, confidence in the security forces and for public belief in the possibilities of securing justice in Northern Ireland against the security forces. Those are the types of case that amendment (a) seeks to address.
4.45 pm
In addition to those issues addressed by amendment (a), there are other matters to which the Government must address their mind when explaining the purposes of Lords amendment No. 12. Why is there such a difference between the Army and police complaints procedures? Why is it so great? The Government have not spelt out the reasons for the particular form of Lords amendment No. 12.
Why does the assessor have such limited powers? Why can he not both initiate inquiries and have complaints brought directly to him? Given the definition of "relevant complaint" as one relating to a member of the armed forces under the command of the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland, can the Minister give an assurance that all members of Her Majesty's forces in Northern Ireland are directly under the command of the GOC Northern Ireland?
A further problem arises when a complaint against a member of the armed services is referred to the Royal Ulster Constabulary for possible criminal charges. What happens if no such charges materialise? As I understand the procedures in the Government's proposals, once the police begin an investigation into such a matter, such a charge would be in abeyance.
If the police decide that there is insufficient evidence for the Director of Public Prosecutions, or if the DPP decides not to prosecute, what will happen? Will the case revert to the jurisdiction of the assessor? If so, will there be any time limits on the period in which the RUC will make complaints? The essence of a complaints procedure, particularly when it does not involve a criminal offence, is that it should be speedy and direct, and the persons involved should see immediately that their problems are being addressed. The biggest complaint we hear from members of the public from both communities relates to the time that it takes for a matter to be resolved.
The Government have responded to a degree to matters which were raised by all the Opposition parties in Committee. However, the Government have missed the opportunity to give their full, frank acceptance of our proposal to give the ordinary person in the street an opportunity to see that justice was being done and that the complaint was being attended to, and that the person involved in assessing the complaint was and is sufficiently independent of the Government, the Minister and the General Officer Commanding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I should inform the House that this group of amendments involves privilege.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): On 17 January, in Committee, I


announced that the Government were considering whether it would be possible to introduce an independent element into the complaints procedure relating to Her Majesty's forces. I returned to the subject on Report, and announced that the Government had decided to accept Lord Colville's recommendation that we should consider the appointment of some independent outside person to carry out on a continuing basis an audit of the way in which armed forces complaints procedures are operating. I also said that the necessary provisions would be brought forward in another place. The new clause and its associated schedule give effect to that undertaking.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to appoint an independent assessor of military complaints procedures in Northern Ireland. It also outlines the independent assessor's functions in some detail. The assessor would be required to keep under review the procedures adopted by the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland for receiving, investigating and responding to non-criminal complaints relating to the behaviour of members of the armed forces under his command. The assessor would be required to receive and investigate any representations concerning those procedures. He may also investigate the operation of those complaints procedures in relation to any particular complaint or group of complaints. He may require the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland to review any particular case or group of cases in which he considers any of the procedures to have operated inadequately; and he may make recommendations to the General Officer Commanding concerning any inadequacies in the procedures.
The assessor has not been given any role in relation to complaints of criminal misconduct by the armed forces. Allegations of criminal misconduct by the armed forces are, and will remain, subject to independent investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said in moving amendment (a), but I have to tell the House that the Government do not support it. The hon. Gentleman criticised the fact that the assessor has not been empowered directly to investigate the substance of non-criminal complaints. The purpose of his amendment is to give the assessor such a role. But the Government do not support giving such a role to the assessor, and I should like to explain why.
First, I ask hon. Members to note that the Government have done exactly what Lord Colville recommended. I refer the House to paragraph 5.25 of Lord Colville's report, where he refers to the appointment of independent outside persons
who carry out an audit of the way in which complaints procedures are operating".
Lord Colville goes on to say:
 … such persons do not perform a reappraisal of any individual complaint investigation on its merits, but undertake a survey of the effectiveness of the machinery. They have generous access to files, can accept complaints about the procedure from anyone aggrieved, exercise a general oversight and usually publish an annual Report.
That is exactly what the Government have provided in the new clause.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: At this stage, the Minister should perhaps elaborate on what he

means by "generous access to files", because that is a crucial element of the proposal. By "generous", does he mean comprehensive?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am not sure what distinction the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw between "generous" and "comprehensive". The assessor will have access whatever files he wishes to have access to.
We believe that Lord Colville's recommendation—

Mr. McNamara: Returning to the intervention of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), the Minister made an important point when he said that the assessor will have access to any files that he thinks necessary. Does that mean that no inhibitions whatsoever will be placed upon the assessor seeking to look at any file?

Dr. Mawhinney: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the provisions place a duty on the General Officer Commanding to
furnish such information … as the … Assessor may reasonably require.
That is a direct quote from amendment No. 12. That is what I meant when I said, in shorthand, that the assessor will have access to whatever files the assessor believes that he should have access to.

Mr. McNamara: Does "reasonably" apply to what the GOC regards as reasonable or what the assessor regards as reasonable?

Dr. Mawhinney: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a mechanism for ultimately determining what is or what is not reasonable in the legislation.

Mr. David Trimble: I am sure that the hon. Minister will agree that amendment No. 12 states that the GOC shall provide
such information … as the … Assessor may reasonably require for the purpose of the performance of his functions." Surely that means "reasonably require
from the point of view of the independent assessor's functions, and that other factors should not intervene.

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman does the House a favour by quoting the provisions exactly and at length.

Mr. Mallon: He is acting as the Minister's PPS.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am not sure that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) would necessarily favour that offer by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is right that this is an important part of our new proposals. I hope that a consequence of our exchange is that he has been able to accept that some of his remarks, on moving his amendment, did not deal as deeply with the powers that we are giving the assessor as he might originally have thought.
We believe that Lord Colville's recommendation was right. The Government are confident that all complaints alleging non-criminal misconduct by members of the armed forces are treated seriously by the Army authorities and are scrupulously and thoroughly investigated; and that appropriate disciplinary action is taken in relevant cases. We are not currently persuaded of the need for independent investigation of such complaints.
However, I ask hon. Members also to look carefully at the functions which have been conferred on the


independent assessor, as set out in clause 60(4), and in particular those in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e). Although these do not amount to giving the assessor a direct role in the investigation of complaints, they do amount to important new and review functions which go a long way to meet the concerns which have been expressed.
Thus, the assessor will be able to investigate how the complaints procedures have operated in relation to any particular complaint. That will enable the assessor to examine the effectiveness of the procedures for investigating complaints. Moreover, as I said, the assessor may require the General Officer Commanding to review any particular case where he believes that the investigation procedures have operated inadequately.
Finally, the assessor is empowered to make recommendations to the GOC concerning any inadequacies in complaints procedures, including—and this is of crucial importance—any inadequacies in the way in which the procedures have operated in relation to any particular complaint or group of complaints. It is clear, therefore, that, if the assessor finds the investigation procedures to have operated inadequately in relation to a particular case, he may require the GOC to review that case, and he may make recommendations to the GOC concerning any inadequacies that he has identified.
I hope that the House will agree that this is an important new provision. The Government believe that the assessor's functions are appropriate, and that he has been given sufficiently wide powers to make the new office fully effective.

Mr. Peter Robinson: rose—

Dr. Mawhinney: It is for those reasons that, as I said earlier, I must ask the House to reject the Opposition amendment—

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I suspect that he is coming to the end of his speech and I want to intervene before he does so.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept—I know that he will —that people in Northern Ireland look at the same situation from a different angle or vision? Is he aware that a broad body of opinion in Northern Ireland is concerned about the legislation that is piling up, which seems to burden our security forces and to make it more difficult for them to operate and to move left or right? Given that we are meeting after another soldier was brutally done to death in my constituency last night by the Provisional IRA, I am sure that the Minister will understand that, when considering with whom they should have sympathy in such circumstances, most people have sympathy with our security forces. Do we really need to make their job that much harder instead of making the task of the terrorist harder?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that the whole House will have sympathy with the family and friends of the soldier who was murdered last night, and that that will not be a matter of debate across the House—nor will the associated condemnation of those who coldly, calculatedly and cold-bloodedly killed him.
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made. Indeed, I believe that it was made in Committee on several occasions. I recollect

this hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) making a similar point. However, his hon. Friend also accepted in Committee that it was important to have a balance between allowing the security forces to get on and do the job of supporting the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which they are there to do and in which, as the hon. Gentleman said, they have the backing of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, and the need, which is also important, for the community to have confidence in the conduct of security-related activity in the Province, because, if that confidence were in any way undermined, the task of the security forces would be made more difficult.
It is not part of the Government's intention in the amendment to shackle the security forces and make their job more difficult. But the Government seek to recognise that a certain level of accountability must be required from the security forces, as it is of the police and others who are involved in public service in the Province.

5 pm

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister agree with me, however, that, while confidence in the security forces is certainly necessary, it is important that Members of Parliament should not only say that they give their support to the security forces but encourage their supporters to be an effective part of the security forces in their drive against the terrorist threat that is upon the whole community?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to move wide of the amendment, but he makes a point in his own way which has been reflected on several occasions in the House. Within the House, there is general support for the security forces in carrying out their functions legitimately. I am sure that that support is welcomed on both sides of the Chamber.

Mr. Mallon: Will the Minister make it clear, before the issue keeps cropping up throughout the debate, that we are dealing with legislation, and therefore, in effect, with the law? It is not a matter of condescending to give people some type of protection under the law. The law itself is duty bound to protect the individual as well as to apprehend and punish the guilty. That is the responsibility of the law. Protection is not something given by grace or favour by the House or by any legislation. There is a duty under the law to provide it. I should like the Minister to clarify that as of now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should perhaps express a cautionary note at this stage: we are in danger of going very wide of the amendments.

Dr. Mawhinney: I take your caution, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All that I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the law has been agreed through Parliament and, of course, it must be applied in exactly the way that he says.

Mr. Trimble: I want to ask the Minister two questions. The first is on subsection (2) of the new clause. While I appreciate that one wants to ensure that the independent assessor is genuinely independent, that will depend largely on the character of the assessor. So is it really wise or right to exclude from that post any person who has served in Her Majesty's forces in the past 20 years? Might not experience of service in the forces in some cases be of assistance, and possibly regarded as a qualification?
My second question is on subsection (5) of the new clause. The Minister may recall that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked for an assurance that all persons deployed as members of the security forces in Northern Ireland would be under the command of the General Officer Commanding. The Minister may have forgotten to deal with that.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the second point. Not everyone in Northern Ireland is under the command of the GOC. There are Territorial Army units and training units in Northern Ireland which are not under his control.

Mr. Trimble: I was referring to forces operating as security forces.

Dr. Mawhinney: Security force operations are under the control of the GOC. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the word "security"; I think that he simply said "forces". He used a broad brush in his question, and I was seeking to respond to the question that he asked.
The first point is a matter of judgment. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right. One could say that service in the armed forces might be an advantage to someone in the role of an assessor. It is a matter for judgment whether in such cases there should be five, 10, 20, or 30-years between service and eligibility. The Government have come to a judgment that 20 years is appropriate, but I recognise that that is a judgment and, as such, is open to debate.
The associated schedule deals with a number of "housekeeping" matters, such as the independent assessor's tenure of office, his remuneration, staff and reports. I should like to say a little more on that last matter. The assessor would be required to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State on the performance of his functions. The schedule provides that such reports are to be published and laid before each House of Parliament. Provision is also made for the independent assessor to make a report to the Secretary of State about any matter which comes to his attention in the course of the performance of his functions. The Government believe that that is an important new safeguard.
We are confident that this new measure to establish the office of independent assessor of armed forces' complaints procedures, coming in addition to all the other improvement in complaints systems introduced in recent years, will be in the public interest. We believe that it will be of value to not only the community, but the armed forces themselves in helping retain the confidence and support of all men and women of good will from both traditions in Northern Ireland.
As I said earlier, we cannot accept the Opposition's amendment, but I commend the Lords amendment to the House.

Mr. Mallon: I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), although I regard even that as inadequate, for several reasons which I shall explain briefly. The first problem is the location. In practical terms, if the complaints procedure is to be effective, there must be ready access to the person's office so that the role can be overseen in a practical way in accordance with the Government's position and the Lords amendments.
Whoever would be appointed would sit in an office somewhere in the Greater Belfast region. He might deal

adequately with the situation in Greater Belfast, but he would be completely inaccessible to the vast tract of Northern Ireland outside that area. The problem of location also affects the operation of the Police Complaints Commission. It is a common factor. Although the commission has the power under the legislation to go out, investigate and see for itself at first hand, the instances of its doing so are few and far between. Location seems a small point, but it is a big problem if one happens to live in say, South Armagh and happens to be the recipient of undue attention from the security forces. People in such areas have no access to the location where the assessor will be.
The second point is about the person. I do not want to make it in an offensive way, but I can find no other way of doing so. What sort of person will he or she be? Will he or she be drawn from the coterie of people in the north of Ireland who, for whatever reason, seem to be suitable for a Government appointment to such a job? He or she will certainly not be a Unionist with a capital "U" or a Nationalist with a capital "N". If experience is anything to go by, he or she will be someone whose experience in the community bears no relation to the sort of problems being dealt with. I would rather see the position given to a committed Unionist, with a capital "U", with enough courage and bottle to stand up and deal with the problems, than to a nice person who has been brought in because she or he holds a tea cup properly on special occasions.
Without being offensive, may I suggest that, given the circumstances in the north of Ireland, with 20 years of violence and 20 years of problems stemming from violence of all sorts, it seems incredible that we cannot find the right sort of person to sit on the Police Complaints Commission who has direct experience on the ground. I do not wish to be personal, but it stretches my credibility—and perhaps that of others—that the vice chairman of the Police Complaints Commission is the wife of a High Court judge. It requires a stretch of the imagination to establish any credibility for that appointment. I shall not go further than that, although I could. I make a plea to those who make the decisions that the communities in the north of Ireland, whether Unionist or Nationalist, contain some honest people who could be chosen to carry out such a job.
I envisage some great difficulties in relation to the operation of the assessor, which I shall couch in terms of recent experience. Mr. Stevens was sent to the north of Ireland to investigate alleged collusion between members of the security forces and terrorist organisations. Mr. Stevens' team had to go to Army headquarters, knock on the door or ring the bell, and say to whoever answered, "We understand that you have boxes of montages containing confidential information about people, and that those boxes were given to you by a member or members of a terrorist organisation to prevent them from being caught with them; could we please have them?" I wonder what the position of the independent assessor, supervising the Army's position, would be in those circumstances. Where would his powers—his teeth—lie? That situation occurred recently in the north of Ireland and was investigated. If we put an independent assessor without any power into that position, it is difficult to imagine what the GOC might have to say to him. In reality, the Stevens inquiry had to wring the evidence out of the Army. That is one of the good reasons why the assessor must be independent, not someone without the power or the teeth to deal with the problem
I shall make a third general point which I believe is relevant. With whom does the responsibility rest for the implementation of the legislation that Parliament draws up? Is it the GOC, the Chief Constable or the Government, acting through Parliament? That is a crucial question, to which the answer is equally crucial. The attitude is developing both in the House and in practice that the people who make security decisions, on policy or otherwise, are not Ministers, but those who carry security clout—be they members of the security services, senior Army officers or civil servants. I should like an assurance from the Minister at some stage today that each and every element of Government in relation to Northern Ireland is honouring its duty in making those decisions, not having the decisions imposed on it by people who are not empowered to do so.
Another relevant factor is the grey area of what has been known as "public interest". The term "public interest" is often used on the Floor of the House. If the independent assessor asks to examine the way in which a complaint was made and is told that information and files will not be given to him because it would not be in the public interest, where is the independent assessor's authority? Surely his authority diminishes almost immediately. Such circumstances can and will arise.
5.15 pm
There is a distinction to be made between the criminal complaint and the non-criminal complaint. Those of us who deal with such matters at the coal face on an almost weekly basis know exactly what the procedure is. First, the complaint goes to the police to establish whether it is a criminal complaint. A period elapses while that decision is made. If the complaint is deemed not to be a criminal one, it is returned to the Army authorities, by which time the soldier and regiment involved are no longer in Northern Ireland, but are in Germany or somewhere else. I have filing cabinets full of letters stating that the Army would be only too glad to deal with a problem, but that the person involved is now in a different country and, unfortunately, the matter must rest there.
These are the sort of difficulties that present themselves on a daily basis. That is why the independent assessor, as envisaged by the Government, will be quite inadequate. Even if the Lords amendment were carried, as I hope it will be, the assessor's toothlessness will remain due to his inability to penetrate the grey area of the decision-making process in relation to security.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I wish briefly, not so much to make a speech, but to put several questions to which the Minister may respond when he replies.
During an intervention I told the Minister of my general concern, and that of a large section of the community in Northern Ireland, at the practice of wearing down the security forces with various forms of restrictions, regulations and inquiries about this, that and the other, as though people in the forces had to be scrutinised the most and we should spend the majority of our time looking at what they were doing. Instead, we should concentrate on those causing death and devastation in Northern Ireland. Perhaps if the House spent as much time thinking of ways and means to take on the terrorists and remove them from

our society, we should have less cause to concern ourselves with the tasks that our security forces are asked to do in the most difficult circumstances.
When I consider clause 59 and the appointment of an independent assessor, I am forced to think of the difficulties faced by the Secretary of State when he is being asked to appoint people to independent posts. During the past weeks, if not months, we have been considering the appointment of an independent chairman. If that has not acquainted the Secretary of State with the difficulties of finding someone who is deemed to be independent by all parties, perhaps nothing will. If he did not have the power that is set out in the Bill to make an appointment, I suspect that no one would be found to take on the task. It would be a long day before the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), we who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland who sit on the Government side of the Chamber and those who similarly represent Northern Ireland constituencies but who sit on the Opposition Benches agreed on who the independent assessor might be. I have no doubt that we would have to take into consideration the views of both the Government and the Opposition.
Would the matter have to go before the Anglo-Irish conference? Will that body have a say in who the assessor will be? Under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, would the Government of the Irish Republic be entitled to make a proposal? Perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies.
I suspect that much of what is contained in the Bill is designed for cosmetic purposes. I say that with the deepest regret.

Mr. Barry Porter: Has it not become entirely obvious during this short debate that the Government have leant over backwards to provide someone who is independent to take on the task of the independent assessor? However, if we produced the Archangel Gabriel, some Opposition Members would find something wrong with that.

Mr. Robinson: I think that they would object if Gabriel was chosen for the task.
When introducing legislation in the past relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland there have been attempts, for cosmetic purposes, to show that something is being done. I have in mind the legislation that prevents members of proscribed organisations from being heard when they are shown on television. We see their mouths moving, but we are not allowed to hear what they say. An actor can speak for them and utter the appropriate words as the lips of the terrorists move. For some unknown reason we are not allowed to hear terrorist spokesmen as they make their remarks. My view is that if we are to do a job, we should do it properly. In other words, we should ensure that terrorists do not appear on television screens. I suspect that this sort of legislation will contain provisions that are designed for cosmetic purposes.
Can the Minister assure the House that a truly independent person will be appointed? I do not want a yes man to be appointed. I have genuine sympathy for some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, for there is a small group in Northern Ireland from which the Government seek to make their appointments for all the major posts within the Province. Appointees have usually been members of the Alliance party at some stage in their careers. Alternatively, they are


members of the small group in Northern Ireland that has affiliated itself to the Conservative party. They have assisted the Tory party from time to time, no doubt because of their affluence if not their influence. These people seem always to be given the key posts by means of the various appointments that are made in Northern Ireland by the Secretary of State. I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman will have any credibility if he appoints someone who merely holds down the post and is not seen to be doing the job for which he has been appointed.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the disproportionate number of public appointments that are made within the membership of the minuscule Alliance party. He must concede that a few appointees are members of Nationalist parties and of nationalist persuasion. Almost no appointees come from the majority Unionist community.

Mr. Robinson: I shall be cautious in replying to the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The Minister appointed me to a post on the Sports Council. I know that if I do not admit that now he will ensure that it is commented upon at the end of the day. He was able to make the appointment because I was nominated by my district council. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who was appointed to the Housing Executive, followed the same route, as have many others.

Rev. William McCrea: Now that my hon. Friend has aspired to the great heights of the Sports Council, perhaps he will use his influence to encourage the Minister to appoint some of our colleagues to other positions in the Province.

Mr. Robinson: I have greater hopes. I hope that with the success of the talks it will be us who will be appointing rather than the Minister. We might appoint the Minister to something after we have taken over.
It seems that there is one major criterion that must be considered when it is decided whether a person is appropriate to take on the task of the independent assessor. One would think that it would be deemed that the character of the individual would be the most important factor, and that a clear guideline would appear in legislation that no one with a criminal record should be appointed to the post. That guideline is not to be found in the Bill. One might think that some degree of experience in an area of the law, for example, might be necessary. Again, that is not set down in the Bill. Following the deep thinking of those who drafted the Bill, there is only one criterion, and it is a negative one: the Bill provides that the appointee should not have been a member of Her Majesty's forces for the past 20 years. It seems that it is all right if someone has been a criminal, but if he has been a soldier or an airman he is ineligible to take up the post.
I suggest that someone from another branch of the security forces might be the best person to be appointed. He would have some knowledge of the way in which Her Majesty's forces operate. He would know when the General Officer Commanding or any other senior officer was trying to pull the wool over his eyes. Such a person would perhaps not be so easily intimidated as others by the top brass within the Army when he attempts to do business. It is wrong that there is a carte blanche refusal to have an independent assessor who has been in Her Majesty's forces within the past 20 years.
There is not much information about the way in which the independent assessor will undertake his responsibilities. We are aware of the various rights—perhaps "rights" is putting it too strongly—that the assessor will have to obtain papers and other pieces of information. To take up one of the terms used by the Minister, I think that they are generous. It would have been pleasant for those of us who were members of the Northern Ireland Assembly to have had the same rights, which would have enabled us to obtain documentation from Departments. The Minister is right that the position of the independent assessor will be such that it will not be possible to hold him back from doing his job by failing to supply him with adequate information. It seems, however—perhaps I have not studied the provisions closely enough—that the independent assessor will not be able to speak to the soldier against whom an allegation has been made, whether or not in the company of a senior officer, so that he can make an assessment of whatever the complaint may be. Will the Minister give us a more graphic description of the sort of job that he sees the independent assessor doing and the way that he might go about it?
Lords amendment No. 12 would insert a new clause 59, subsection (4)(d) of which says that the independent assessor
may require the GOC to review any particular case".
Can the independent assessor simply force the GOC to review the case, or can he go beyond that and force him to review it in a particular way? It would be fairly meaningless if, having looked at what the GOC might have done in a particular case and having found that he dealt with it inadequately, he asked them to review it and the GOC did just what he did before. The independent assessor would not convince people in the community of his worth if he did not have the power to encourage the GOC to go beyond simply rubber-stamping his decision.
I hope that the Minister will respond to those matters, but, above all, I press him, instead of introducing more and more legislation to tie down our security forces, to bring us legislation that will encompass a new, strong, tough security initiative against the terrorists so that the men who are really causing problems in Northern Ireland can be dealt with.

Dr. Mawhinney: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that the Minister has the leave of the House to speak again.

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked a number of questions, and it would be courteous if I responded briefly.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh commented on the Stevens inquiry and collusion. That goes well beyond the purpose of the clause. It is an offence under the Bill to possess information such as montages likely to be useful to terrorists, and because it is illegal, it would be an offence for the RUC to investigate rather than the assessor.
The hon. Gentleman also asked who makes policy. As the hon. Gentleman knows, policy is made by Ministers, but operational details are not their responsibility. He, like the hon. Member for Belfast, East, asked who the assessor would be and what would be his standing in the community. I hope that he will accept what I am about to


say in the spirit in which it is said. The assessor will have to be someone who can command confidence across the community.
That leads me to a question asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. When he said—I do not believe that I do him an injustice—that he thought that it would be difficult for him and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to agree on an independent assessor, he highlighted the importance of having someone who can command confidence across the community and put the appointment into sharp political focus. Perhaps, in so doing, he went at least some way to answer the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh about the appointment of those who are clearly and strongly identified in political terms with one part of the community or the other.
The hon. Gentleman said that the only requirement was that the man should have been independent of the armed forces for the previous 20 years, but he did not go on to mention paragraph (1) (4) of Lords amendment No. 31, which enables the Secretary of State to remove from office anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence, has been made bankrupt or is otherwise unfit to perform his functions. Those were some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will be encouraged to find them in the legislation.
The statutory responsibility for the appointment falls on the Secretary of State. I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's point about the appointment of a yes man. As I said to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, the man, or woman, will have to command confidence across the community. The hon. Member for Belfast, East is right—getting political agreement across the community is not necessarily the easiest job of any Secretary of State, as we have discovered during recent weeks, but I believe that there are people who can command confidence, and I accept the comment of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that that confidence should involve a degree of independence to enable him to do his job.
The hon. Gentleman asked how the person appointed will do his job. That is a matter not for me but for the person who is appointed. He will have his own views on how the job should be conducted within the law passed by this Parliament. He will be able to ask the GOC to review procedures in a particular case, and the GOC, who I am sure will want to co-operate with such a request, will also be conscious that the assessor will be producing an annual report which will not only go to the Secretary of State but will be laid before both Houses of Parliament. I believe that, when I spoke about that matter, I stressed the importance of that aspect of the legislation.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister does me an injustice if he suggests that I have not seen the amendment to the schedule concerning being convicted of a criminal offence. Clearly, I did not get my point over to the Minister. I was drawing a comparison between the clause 59 provision that a person shall not be eligible if he has been a serving member of Her Majesty's forces and the schedule which says that the Secretary of State may remove someone who has a conviction or a criminal record. There is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State appointing someone with a conviction or a criminal record as an independent assessor. It may be unlikely, but the legislation does not prohibit it.

Dr. Mawhinney: I apologise if the hon. Gentleman thought that I was misrepresenting him; I was not doing so deliberately. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I would agree that it would be fairly unlikely for the Secretary of State to appoint someone with a major criminal conviction, given the power in the legislation to have such a person removed were it to happen once he had been appointed.
I think that I have addressed the questions that were asked of me. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the House will not accept amendment (a) but will accept Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 31.

Mr. McNamara: I have listened with care to what the Minister had to say. He did not answer the main point at issue—the individual right of complaint to be taken up by an independent assessor against the security forces. In view of the Minister's failure to do that, I shall seek to divide the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made to the Lords amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 199.

Division No. 184]
[5.37 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Kennedy, Charles


Anderson, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Armstrong, Hilary
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Ashton, Joe
Livingstone, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Loyden, Eddie


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McAllion, John


Battle, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Beckett, Margaret
Macdonald, Calum A.


Beith, A. J.
McFall, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McGrady, Eddie


Blair, Tony
McKelvey, William


Boateng, Paul
McMaster, Gordon


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Madden, Max


Carl Me, Alex (Mont'g)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mallon, Seamus


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Marek, Dr John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Meacher, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Meale, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cox, Tom
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Crowther, Stan
Morgan, Rhodri


Cryer, Bob
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Mullin, Chris


Dixon, Don
Nellist, Dave


Dobson, Frank
O'Brien, William


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Patchett, Terry


Edwards, Huw
Pike, Peter L.


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fisher, Mark
Prescott, John


Foster, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fyfe, Maria
Randall, Stuart


Galloway, George
Richardson, Jo


George, Bruce
Robertson, George


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Robinson, Geoffrey


Golding, Mrs Llin
Sheerman, Barry


Graham, Thomas
Short, Clare


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Skinner, Dennis


Hain, Peter
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Soley, Clive


Hood, Jimmy
Spearing, Nigel


Howells, Geraint
Steinberg, Gerry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wallace, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Walley, Joan


Ingram, Adam
Warded, Gareth (Gower)






Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Frank Haynes and



Mr. Ken Eastham.


NOES


Arbuthnot, James
Harris, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hayes, Jerry


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Baldry, Tony
Hayward, Robert


Beggs, Roy
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hill, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hind, Kenneth


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Boswell, Tim
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brazier, Julian
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Bright, Graham
Irvine, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jack, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Janman, Tim


Browne, John (Winchester)
Jessel, Toby


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Sir Antony
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Burns, Simon
Kilfedder, James


Burt, Alistair
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Butler, Chris
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butterfill, John
Knapman, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carttiss, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Cash, William
Latham, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lawrence, Ivan


Chapman, Sydney
Lee, John (Pendle)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lord, Michael


Curry, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
McCrea, Rev William


Davis, David (Boothterry)
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Devlin, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dicks, Terry
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dorrell, Stephen
Maclean, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Dover, Den
Maginnis, Ken


Dunn, Bob
Malins, Humfrey


Durant, Sir Anthony
Mans, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Maples, John


Eggar, Tim
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Emery, Sir Peter
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Evennett, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Farr, Sir John
Mates, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maude, Hon Francis


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Moate, Roger


Forth, Eric
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fox, Sir Marcus
Morrison, Sir Charles


Franks, Cecil
Moss, Malcolm


Freeman, Roger.
Moynihan, Hon Colin


French, Douglas
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Gale, Roger
Nelson, Anthony


Gardiner, Sir George
Neubert, Sir Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gorst, John
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Gregory, Conal
Porter, David (Waveney)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Grist, Ian
Rathbone, Tim


Ground, Patrick
Redwood, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hague, William
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Riddick, Graham


Hanley, Jeremy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)





Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thorne, Neil


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom
Tracey, Richard


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tredinnick, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trimble, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Viggers, Peter


Shelton, Sir William
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watts, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wheeler, Sir John


Squire, Robin
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wood, Timothy


Summerson, Hugo
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Sir Teddy



Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Tellers for the Noes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. David Lightbown and


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Neil Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 1

THE SCHEDULED OFFENCES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out ("or Part III") and insert (", III or IV")

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 20.

Dr. Mawhinney: The amendments were added to the Bill in another place to strengthen further the provisions aimed at those people who deliberately involve themselves in activities intended to provide finance for terrorism. That objective has been widely reported in this House and also in another place.
The combined effect of the amendments is to provide that any offence which is charged as a result of the use by authorised investigators of the new powers set out in clause 57 and schedule 5 of the Bill should be both scheduled offences —that is, triable before a non-jury court —and relevant offences—that is, offences, convictions for which will count for the purpose of attracting the confiscation provisions in part VII and schedule 4 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 1 simply inserts a definition of the new scheduled offence into schedule 1 of the Bill as a new part IV to that schedule. Amendment No. 20 contains the context of that new part IV. The definition is provided by reference to a certification by an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, not below the rank of superintendent. That officer will certify as to a question of fact that the offence is one charged in consequence of a terrorist fund investigation. The definition in those terms is necessary because the pre-trial procedures for scheduled and non-scheduled offences are different, and there must be some measures by which the magistrate can be informed that an offence which might not look like a scheduled offence is such an offence.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 provide that any offence which is tried as a scheduled offence, by virtue of the amendments to which I have just referred, will be a relevant offence, as defined in clause 49.
The amendments were widely welcomed in another place. They are intended to ensure that those people who wilfully involve themselves in activities which generate finance for terrorism, and often in profit for themselves, can more effectively be brought to justice, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. McNamara: It is interesting to note that we are arriving at a scheduling-in process. Perhaps in future that will be developed even more firmly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19

POWER TO SEARCH FOR MUNITIONS, RADIO TRANSMITTERS AND SCANNING RECEIVERS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 13, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 25 and insert—
("(3) If it is necessary for the purpose of effectively carrying out a search—

(a) a member of Her Majesty's forces or constable exercising the powers conferred by subsection (1) above may be accompanied by other persons; and
(b)")

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Clause 19(3) of the Bill creates a new power to enable civilian specialists to accompany searches of premises, including dwelling houses or other places where there are munitions or transmitters.
When this provision was considered in Committee on 15 January concern was expressed by the hon. Members for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that the provision was too widely drafted and could enable almost anyone to be authorised to accompany a search. At that time the hon. Member for Leicester, South said that the clause contained no provision that requires someone's presence to be "both justifiable and or necessary." We have given thought to that matter. The Government amended the provision in another place to provide that other persons may accompany a search or be authorised to accompany a house search only if it is necessary effectively to carry out the search. Therefore, the amendment requires a person's presence to be justifiable and necessary, which would be a further safeguard on the operation of the new provision.

Mr. McNamara: The Opposition are grateful to the Government for accepting our argument that more precision is needed in the safeguarding of individuals. We welcome what has been done.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 14, line 22, at end insert—

("(7A) Where a member of Her Majesty's forces or a constable carries out a search under subsection (1) or (2) above he shall, unless it is not practicable to do so, make a written record of the search which shall specify—

(a) the address of the premises, or a description of the place, which is searched;
(b) the date and time of the search;
(c) any damage caused in the course of the search; and

(d) anything seized in the course of the search.

(7B) Such a record shall also include the name (if known) of any person appearing to the person making the record to be the occupier of the premises or other place searched; but—

(a) a person may not be detained to find out his name; and
(b) if the person making the record does not know the name of a person appearing to him to be the occupier of the premises or other place searched, he shall include in the record a note otherwise describing him.

(7C) Such a record shall identify the person by whom the search is carried out—

(a) in the case of a constable, by reference to his police number; and
(b) in the case of a member of Her Majesty's forces, by reference to his service number, rank and regiment.

(7D) Where a record of a search is made under this section a copy of the record shall be supplied at once or, where that is not practicable, as soon as is practicable to any person appearing to the person making the record to be the occupier of the premises or other place searched.")

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 8.

Dr. Mawhinney: The purpose of Lords amendment No. 3 is to place a duty on the police and the armed forces to make a written record, subject to practicability, when they carry out searches of premises, including dwelling houses, or other places under the powers in clause 19.
Lords amendment No. 8 requires similar written records for searches of vehicles, vessels or aircraft under clause 26, but only when they have been removed for the purposes of a search.
While such searches are clearly necessary in the interests of security, it is right that the Government should seek, wherever possible and practicable, to build in safeguards in the exercise of those powers. I know that some hon. Members might wish that the Government had gone further and had required written records for searches of persons in a public place under clause 19(6), or when the power to stop and question under clause 23 is exercised. However, as I said before, such powers are used so frequently that it would not be possible or practicable to complete a written record when they are exercised.
The amendments place a duty on the police and armed forces to make a written record, which must also specify the address of the premises or a description of the place, the date and time of the search, any damage caused and anything seized in the course of the search. It would identify the constable or member of the armed forces making the search, and there is a requirement for a copy of the record to be supplied to the occupier of the premises, or other place searched, at once or as soon as is practicable.
The Government believe that this is an important new safeguard, and I hope that the House will welcome it.

Mr. McNamara: I welcome this amendment, but we could have been saved all this time if the Government had accepted it when we originally tabled it in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22

EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 16, line 29, at end insert
("at once or, if that is not practicable, as soon as is practicable")

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Clause 22 requires the police and armed forces to make a written record when they exercise their power to examine documents under the clause, and to provide a copy of the record to the owner of the documents. However, the clause does not specify any time limit within which the written record must be provided to the owner of the documents. While that was not a matter of concern to the House when the Government amended clause 22 on Report, it was a matter which concerned their Lordships in another place. It was always the Government's intention that, where practicable, a copy of the written record should be provided at once. That would be especially valuable where documents are used or removed for examination. The amendment is designed to have that effect, and I hope that the House will welcome it.

Mr. McNamara: This amendment requires the security forces to provide a written record on examination of any document under the terms of clause 22 as soon as is practicable, and it is a response to an amendment moved in another place by the Opposition. As it responds to our suggestion, we welcome it.
Despite the Government's efforts to amend the clause, it still presents a number of problems. The problem of legal privilege remains, although the clause has been amended to provide for the recognition of such privilege. The amended clause is still defective, because it does not address the practical difficulty identified in the other place —how the determination of legal privilege is to be made.
The difficulty arises when a policeman or soldier finds a document in the course of a search, or has to determine whether it is legally privileged. As drafted, the clause contains an inherent contradiction: it empowers members of the security forces to search such documents to verify whether they are legally entitled to search them.
6 pm
We foresee a number of problems. Members of the security forces will be forced to make decisions that are normally in the hands of the judiciary. It is not clear how the power will work in practice. The Government have promised that force instructions will be issued to the police and the Army, but there appear to be no plans to provide the public with guidance on how the operation of the clause will affect them—or, indeed, on the degree to which the force instructions will be made freely available to them. There is a possibility of endless friction between the public and the security forces, and the clause is more likely to hinder the security forces than to help them.
The Government seem to rely on the fact that the power to search and seize documents is included in ordinary criminal law—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That is a false analogy, for two reasons. First, such powers are confined to searches of premises; secondly, they are subject to judicial control of the issuing of search warrants. Neither condition applies in clause 22.
The Government have tried to make the clause more palatable by inserting the practicability test; nevertheless, we still believe that the Bill would have been better without the clause, which will cause needless confusion. That might as well be on the Government's head, however.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23

POWER TO STOP AND QUESTION

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 17, line 5, leave out ("and question any person") and insert
("any person for so long as is necessary in order to question him").

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the powers to stop and question conferred by clause 23. In Committee, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) expressed concern that, in some instances, the power was being used effectively as a power to detain persons for longer than was necessary to question them about the matters covered by subsection (1). This is the second Lords amendment to have arisen, at least in part, as a consequence of what was said in Committee by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. We considered his points carefully, and subsequently tabled the amendment in another place to ensure that the clause would not be regarded as a power to detain people for longer than necessary.
The only powers to detain persons for a significant period are those provided by clause 18—the Army arrest power—and clause 94, which allows persons' movements to be restricted during a house or vehicle search. In both cases, the maximum period for which persons can be detained is four hours, unless a further period of detention is authorised by the police.
The amendment is intended as a modest safeguard. I hope that it will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and by the House.

Mr. McNamara: In so far as the amendment limits the power to stop and question to the period required for questioning, it should prove a useful means of preventing harassment and what is regarded on occcasion as undue persecution by the security forces—the use of delaying tactics before people are actually questioned. We therefore welcome the amendment, which should go a long way towards enabling us to gain the support for the security forces that is currently needed. People will feel that they are being treated fairly, rather than being unduly harassed and delayed.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the Minister for his kind words. It would be churlish of me not to welcome what he has said, in part at least.
Welcoming the amendment, however, is almost akin to welcoming the news that one is going to be not hanged but half hanged. That is of course an exaggerated analogy, but I should like to take this opportunity to repeat a plea that I constantly make to the Minister.
In emergency legislation, we must always safeguard the rights of the individual, whoever that individual may be. The iniquitous business of stopping people on the street —especially young people—under guard of guns, and


searching and questioning them, is not only humiliating; it is bad policing and bad military tactics, and completely counter-productive.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO DIRECT THE CLOSURE, ETC. OF ROADS

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 18, line 12, leave out ("The Secretary of State") and insert
("If the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so for the preservation of the peace or the maintenance of order he").

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Clause 25 empowers the Secretary of State to direct the closure or diversion of roads, and makes it an offence to interfere with works carried out in connection with such a closure. The amendment is intended to provide a certain safeguard on the exercise of those powers. It would enable the scope of the Secretary of State's power to be stated more explicitly, limiting it to occasions when he considers it necessary for the preservation of the peace or the maintenance of order. I hope that the House will accept the amendment on that basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 57

ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION POWERS

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 41, line 17, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 26 and insert
("a person who has been authorised under subsection (1) above to exercise the powers there mentioned considers that any material may be relevant to the investigation in relation to which the authority was given, Schedule 7 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (terrorist investigations) shall have effect in relation to the material as if—

(a) the references to a constable in paragraphs 2(1), 3(1) and (2)(b), 5(1) and (3), 6(1), 12(2)(b), 14(3) and 15(1);
(b) the first of the references to a constable in paragraph 3(6); and
(c) the references to a procurator fiscal in paragraphs 12(1) and (6), 13(2), 14(1) and 15(1),

included references to that person; and where (by virtue of this subsection) such a person has made an application for an order under paragraph 3 of that Schedule, the reference in paragraph 4(2)(b) to the constable on whose application the order was made or any constable serving in the same police station shall be construed as referring to that person.")

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to extend to authorised investigators appointed under clause 57 some of the powers of a constable under schedule 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. That Act empowers a police officer to apply for search warrants and production orders in connection with investigations of terrorist finances.
Because the material obtained as a result of the execution of such warrants and orders is likely to be complex and technical, in such cases the RUC will

probably apply to the Secretary of State for the appointment of an authorised investigator to assist the investigation. The amendment would simply provide that, when an authorised investigator had been appointed to deal with such an investigation, he could himself apply for any further search warrants or production orders that were required. Persons applying for such orders can expect to be asked searching questions by whomever is considering the application, and it would not be easy for anyone but the authorised investigator to attempt to answer them.
The proposal in no way alters the properly strict conditions that must be fulfilled before any order may be granted under schedule 7. It simply enables an authorised investigator to apply for such orders. It also allows an authorised investigator access to any material that is the subject of an access order. Without such a provision, the authorised investigator would have to seek a production order for the material.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60

CODES OF PRACTICE: POLICE POWERS

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 42, line 19, leave out from ("State") to ("the") in line 26 and insert
("shall make codes of practice in connection with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and may make codes of practice in connection with—

(a) the exercise by police officers of any power conferred by Part II of this Act of by that Act; and
(b)").

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
On Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, concern was expressed from a number of quarters about police procedures at the terrorist holding centres. I repeat that the Government are wholly committed to ensuring that the highest standards apply in the conduct of police interviews with terrorist suspects. We have listened carefully to the anxieties that were expressed, and have decided to make a number of important changes.
First, we have decided to create a code of practice under the powers in clause 60, dealing with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of terrorist suspects. The amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to produce such a code; it would also leave intact the enabling power in relation to the other matters currently specified in the clause as possibilities for codes of practice.
The Government also announced in another place on 13 May that we were considering the appointment of an independent commissioner to monitor procedures at terrorist holding centres. While our ideas on that remain at a formative stage, it is possible to envisage a scheme with certain general features.
First, the commissioner would be appointed with the remit to visit holding centres and to have access to those centres at any time of his or her choosing. Secondly, the primary task of the commissioner would be to ensure that the proper procedures relating to the treatment of terrorist suspects were being followed. Thirdly, the commissioner would, therefore, be concerned with such matters as the proper completion of custody records, the procedures


under schedule 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989, the proposed code of practice on detention to be made under the Bill, the provisions of part VI of the Bill, the continued supervision of the closed circuit monitors and, generally, to see that the arrangements for the detention of suspects were satisfactory. Fourthly, the commissioner might have the duty to report periodically to the Secretary of State and could be required to draw any matter of immediate concern to the attention of the Chief Constable.
It will take some time to work out the details of the scheme. We are currently having discussions with the RUC, the police authority and the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, among others, on those matters. I hope that the House will feel able to welcome those developments. They demonstrate that the Government have given serious consideration to the concerns that were raised in the House and are prepared, wherever possible and practicable, to introduce new measures to enhance confidence in police procedures and to enhance further the rights of persons arrested and detained under the terrorism provisions in Northern Ireland. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. McNamara: The main purpose of the amendment is to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State in connection with the making of codes of practice concerning detention, treatment, questioning and the identification of people detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989. That is to be welcomed.
There exists an internal contradiction, however, because whereas the codes of practice dealing with the Army and so on will be discretionary, the code that we are discussing will be mandatory. That requires explanation. When will the code of practice be published? It is important for it to become available as soon as possible because of continuing complaints and controversy surrounding matters at holding centres.
We greatly welcome the decision announced in the other place about the possible appointment of an independent commissioner to examine matters at holding centres. Under what power will the independent commissioner be appointed? Will it be under this or other legislation, or will the appointment flow from the publication of the code of practice?
Issues such as visits to holding centres to see the procedures that are followed, and other aspects of the independent commissioner's remit, are also important. Will the report to the Secretary of State and documents calling matters to the attention of the police constable be publicly reported? Is there likely to be a report to Parliament, as has been suggested under the procedures for the Army complaints system?
I appreciate the difficulties involved and I welcome the general thrust of what is proposed, but are we likely to receive further information on this issue before the House rises towards the end of July? Or shall we have to wait until after the House reassembles in the autumn?
The Minister should be aware that, no matter how much we welcome the new procedures, by far the best safeguard would be to adopt the suggestion of Lord Colville, against which the Government and the RUC have steadfastly set their faces, for the videoing of all interrogations and occurrences at holding centres. That would be the greatest safeguard. Indeed, if what is proposed were coupled with the full sound and video taping and recording of interrogations, that would go a

long way towards overcoming many difficulties and suspicions. Even so, we welcome the step that the Government are taking.

Mr. Mallon: I, too, welcome the code of practice, but I hope that the Minister will use all his courage and make the provision statutory rather than mandatory. Such an approach would go a long way towards helping to ease the minds of people concerned with the code of practice.
While I welcome the appointment of an independent commissioner, I believe that the commissioner should have the power to speak to the person or persons being held. If not, it will seem that he is hearing only one side of the story. Three criteria must be met in that connection. First, only by speaking to the person being held can he know whether and at what time a request for legal advice was made.
Secondly, he could be told whether a request had been made for a visit from the person's own medical practitioner. No amount of oversight of the documentation could establish properly in the mind of the commissioner the facts about that. Without that criterion being met, the commissioner will have to go on the word of, say, the senior police officer, who may have denied such requests for legal advice and the presence of a medical practitioner. To be properly convinced, the commissioner should have the right to talk to the person or persons being held.
Thirdly, the commissioner should know precise), how and when the next of kin was notified of the fact that the person concerned was detained in a holding centre. Without the right to speak to the person in detention, the commissioner will have to accept the word perhaps of the person who made the decision in question.
There seems no reason why such power should not be given to the independent commissioner, remembering that the person concerned is in a police station or holding centre. That person should have the right to say to the commissioner, "I asked for a legal adviser at a certain time; I asked for a visit from a medical practitioner at a certain time; and may I be told whether my parents or next of kin have been notified, as required under the legislation, and at what time that was done?"

Dr. Mawhinney: With the permission of the House, I will speak again.
I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for welcoming the amendment. The Government are not currently convinced of the case for making codes of practice in connection with the exercise by the police and armed forces of the emergency powers conferred by part II of the Bill. However, we shall be updating the guide to the emergency powers and will keep the case under review. The hon. Gentleman knows from our exchanges in Committee and on Report that when I say that we will keep the matter under review, that is not just a form of words.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has misunderstood the difference between mandatory and statutory. The code of practice will be statutory. The Bill would impose a mandatory requirement on the Secretary of State to make such a code.
Both hon. Gentlemen mentioned a number of points about our thinking concerning a commissioner. Though valid points, I cannot respond to them today, for obvious


reasons. As I said, we are still at the formative stage of our thinking, but I undertake to draw the attention of my noble Friend to the comments of both hon. Gentlemen, although I must tell the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that I doubt whether we shall be able to conclude our thinking and consultations on the issue before the summer recess.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 66

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 46, line 35, after ("4") insert
("or paragraph 7 of Schedule 5")

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 30.

Dr. Mawhinney: Lords amendment No. 30 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make a code of practice in connection with the exercise by authorised investigators of the powers conferred by schedule 5. Because those powers are, in some respects, as far-reaching as the powers of the security forces in relation to the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, we have thought it appropriate that their exercise should be regulated by a code. Such a code will act as a safeguard for those who are subject to the use of the powers and for the authorised investigators who are to exercise them. The detailed provisions relating to the making of the code are set out in Lords amendment No. 30.
Lords amendment No. 15 provides that an order bringing such a code into operation shall be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The amendments introduce a significant safeguard. They have been welcomed in another place and by interested parties in Northern Ireland, including the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. McNamara: I welcome the Minister's announcement. When the question of greater and extensive powers being given to authorised investigators first jumped on the Committee, grave concern was expressed, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The ability to channel powers and responsibilities into a code of practice is to be welcomed, and it ties in with a previous amendment in which we regularised the position of investigators as constables. The combination of the code of practice and the position of constables puts something that was vague, and therefore dangerous, when it was first presented to the Committee into a framework that may allay some of our earlier fears about the powers.
We welcome the proposal, but we shall have to see what is in the code before we can say that it is fully welcomed.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

THE SCHEDULED OFFENCES

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 51, leave out line 44 and insert—
("(e) paragraph 25B of Schedule 4 (contravention of restraint orders.")

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 32.

Dr. Mawhinney: Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 32 consolidate and strengthen the law relating to breaches of restraint orders granted under powers in schedule 4. As the House will be aware, the purpose of such orders is to freeze assets so that they are available to be confiscated or forfeited if a conviction is obtained. It is right that the courts should have available a wide range of penalties to deal with those who choose deliberately to flout such orders, and that is the effect of the amendments.
Contraventions of restraint orders are normally dealt with as contempts of court. By virtue of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the maximum sentence available to a court is two years' imprisonment. I believe that hon. Members will recognise that such a penalty is not adequate to deal with those who deliberately flout a restraint order relating to terrorist finance.
There is the further difficulty that contempt of court is neither a scheduled offence nor a relevant offence for the purpose of the confiscation scheme and, as most contempts of court have nothing to do with the emergency in Northern Ireland, it would be inappropriate to provide that they should be.
As hon. Members will recall, the confiscation scheme as introduced on Report included a new offence of contravening a restraint order granted by the Secretary of State. That was necessary because contravention of such an order would not amount to contempt of court but, because the offence was analogous to contempt of court, it was not considered that we could ask the House to provide a stiffer penalty for it than for contempt.
The inadequacies of the two-year maximum sentence and the other difficulties to which I referred were appreciated, but unfortunately it was not possible to complete all the consultations necessary before Report stage in the House. The consultation has since been completed, and the amendments are the result.
The amendments therefore create new offences of contravening restraint orders, whether made by the High Court or by the Secretary of State. It will be a defence to prove that the breach took place with lawful authority or reasonable excuse. The maximum penalty will be 14 years' imprisonment. The offences will be both scheduled and relevant for the purposes of the confiscation scheme in part VII. I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 52, line 15, leave out ("8(4)") and insert ("8A")

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendment No. 29.

Dr. Mawhinney: Lords amendments Nos. 19 and 29 have the same effect for restraint orders under schedule 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the arguments for them are identical to those that I made in support of Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 32. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4

CONFISCATION ORDERS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 21, in page 60, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 14

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 22 to 28.

Dr. Mawhinney: Lords amendments Nos. 22 to 28 make a small but important change to the provisions on restraint and charging orders found in schedule 4 to the Bill. We now take the view that, in the very special circumstances that regrettably exist in Northern Ireland, the involvement of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the making of applications for such orders in terrorist cases, sometimes before anyone has even been charged with any offence, might be regarded as calling into question his independence at a later stage.
The effect of the amendments is therefore to provide that applications for such orders made before a person has been convicted are to be made by an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary of at least the rank of superintendent. Applications made after a person has been convicted will continue to be made by the DPP in Northern Ireland.
Lords amendments Nos. 21 and 23 to 27 are simply consequential on that decision not to involve the DPP in Northern Ireland in pre-conviction applications. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to

Northern Ireland (Interim Period)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved.
The draft order renews the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1974 under which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. In presenting the draft order to the House, I owe the House an account of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland over the past year and, in particular, of the progress made in preparing the ground for the political talks on Northern Ireland which are now under way.
I shall first report on the security situation in Northern Ireland and on what Her Majesty's Government and the security forces are doing to bring terrorism to an end. Tragically, the security situation continues to bring death and suffering to the Province. Last year, 76 people were killed and this year to date the figure is 38. The terrorism which is the motor of this continuing misery is anathema and runs counter to everything that we value. Terrorists fail—or refuse—to comprehend that they will achieve nothing by their brutal methods of coercion and that they are an undemocratic and unrepresentative anachronism in a world where people increasingly settle their political differences by peaceful democratic means. They will not succeed because of the resolve of all decent people in Northern Ireland and because of the Government's determination to maintain the rule of law.
I must pay a special tribute to the security forces, whose courage and professionalism in the face of unremitting threat to their lives is exemplary and who strive to protect the people of Northern Ireland. The efforts of the security forces are all the more vital because it is the present intention of the terrorists to prevent any political progress. The security forces deserve the support of everyone in Northern Ireland.
The Government will do all in their power to assist and support the security forces. The House will be aware that the current Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill brings together, in one piece of legislation, all the anti-terrorism provisions which apply uniquely to Northern Ireland. In addition to re-enacting the main emergency powers, as Lord Colville recommended, the Bill creates a number of new offences and additional powers which will materially assist in the defeat of terrorism. It is also important to strike the right balance between providing the legal means needed to protect the community effectively while at the same time providing appropriate safeguards for individuals. For that reason, the Bill provides for statutory codes of practice on the exercise of its powers, and creates the new office of Independent Assessor of Armed Forces Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland to help enhance public confidence in the way in which non-criminal complaints against soldiers are dealt with.
The Government's determination to build on the progress that has been achieved with the Irish Government on security co-operation remains no less strong. Much has been achieved since 1985, but more needs to be done if both Governments are to defeat the terrorist threat to the entire island of Ireland.
The Government have of course been active over the whole range of their responsibilites.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State assist the House? He said that more had to be done in terms of security co-operation with the Government of the Irish Republic. Can he tell us on what sort of security issues he is currently pressing the Government of the Irish Republic?

Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's question and his reason for asking it, but I do not think that it would be in the interests of joint security efforts if I shared those details with the House because to do so would be to afford intelligence to others.
The Government remain strongly committed to strengthening Northern Ireland's economy. Northern Ireland's economic performance is closely bound up with that of the national economy and inevitably the Province has recently begun to feel the effects of the national recession. But the local economy has so far held up comparatively well. For example, the output of Northern Ireland's manufacturing industries in the fourth quarter of 1990 remained at the same level as in the fourth quarter of 1989 despite a fall in output within the United Kingdom as a whole of 3 per cent. during that same period. Unemployment has risen over the past six months and most recently available figures show that it stands at 99,400, or 13·7 per cent. of the work force. But that is still about 26,000 below the peak rate in October 1986, and the figure has risen significantly more slowly than in Great Britain.
There are encouraging signs of continuing interest in Northern Ireland as an industrial location. An increasing number of jobs—almost 1,400—will be created by organisations which are transferring or are in the process of locating "back office" work to Northern Ireland. These include Government Departments and private bodies such as British Airways, Prudential Assurance and BIS Beecom.
If the Northern Ireland economy is to grow stronger and take advantage of the opportunities that the 1990s offer—not least through the coming of the single European market—the competitiveness of its industry will be a key factor. Last year, we launched a strategy to assist the development of competitiveness in Northern Ireland. It is particularly directed at helping industry to overcome barriers to competitiveness and growth which stem from inefficiencies in the markets for capital, labour and information and which companies cannot surmount by their own efforts.
On the basis of that strategy, the Industrial Development Board will work with the private sector to maximise growth. Training will be an important component. Northern Ireland already has a strong asset in its work force. Educational standards are high. But we need to improve the job-related training and the skills and versatility of the Northern Ireland work force if productivity levels are to become competitive in a wider range of international markets. The Training and Employment Agency addressed these problems as its priority and launched its strategy last January.
Prosperity must be shared by all, and the Government are committed to eradicating inequality and disadvantage

wherever they exist in Northern Ireland. Earlier this year, I announced that targeting social need would become one of our principal priorities for Government expenditure in Northern Ireland. That effort will play a significant role in removing the community divisions which are one of the obstacles to establishing a peaceful and stable environment in Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the campaign being waged against the economy of Northern Ireland by the Irish Republicans in the United States?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am glad to say that, although the campaign in relation to the MacBride principles, which has been going for some years, has been endorsed by the legislatures of a number of states, it has been prevented in others. The serious feature of these principles is their deterrent effect on investment in the Province, given that it is the creation of extra jobs which is likely to lead to the securing of a balance in employment between the two sides of the community.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the redundancies at Lummus Mackies have anything to do with the New York decision?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that the decisions relating to Lummus Mackies relate to the New York decision. They arise essentially from a trading matter affecting the business itself.
In practical terms, last April I announced that the level of funding for "Making Belfast Work"—a major initiative that we launched in 1988—has been increased by 22 per cent. to £27·5 million in this financial year. The total allocated to the project over six years will be £123·6 million. That funding is addititional to the extensive resources that Northern Ireland Departments continue to put into these areas through their normal main line programmes such as economic development, health and education. Results so far are encouraging. For example, during the past two years the Local Enterprise Development Unit has promoted more than 2,000 new jobs in the areas covered by the initiative. That represents a trebling of its performance in the areas concerned before the initiative.
Financial support from Government is only one aspect of the road to recovery in disadvantaged areas. I am encouraged by the examples that I have seen of local groups working closely together and in partnership with Government. Communities are assuming direct responsibility over the important areas of employment, enterprise generation and training.
I should mention a recent report, commissioned by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, on the financing of schools in Northern Ireland, because of the concern it raises that Catholic schools may not be so favourably treated as others. The report recommends that the capital grant rates of 85 per cent. for voluntary school building should be reviewed. Voluntary schools include all Catholic schools. They differ from fully financed or controlled schools, which are largely Protestant, in that trustees have majority representation on school boards of governors. The basis for a review of those financial arrangements is under discussion with the Catholic Church authorities. The report also recommends that the


Department of Education should monitor the impact of its policies on the different sections of the education system. I am fully committed, within the "Targeting Social Need" initiative, to the task of monitoring the impact of the Government's policies and programmes, including the funding of capital grants for schools.
The programme of community relations work undertaken by the Central Community Relations Unit and the Department of Education is another example of our commitment to tackle Northern Ireland's problems. I have increased support for community relations from £4 million last year to £5·5 million in this financial year for projects designed to create equality of opportunity and equity of treatment for all parts of the community, to promote cross-community contact and to increase mutual respect and understanding of the different cultures and traditions in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Barry Porter: This is an appropriate moment for me to express my regret at not having been at the Dorchester hotel last night, largely because I was not invited. It would be appropriate if the Secretary of State were to accept the House's view—whatever one believes the ultimate outcome will be—that he was a proper recipient of the award in recognition of his outstanding contribution to the spirit of reconciliation and harmony between the two countries. I do not know how it will all end, but however it ends it will be in no small part due to my right hon. Friend's efforts, and it is appropriate to say so.

Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. My only regret is that any hon. Member should have been excluded from an event that took place in my constituency.
These policies and many other practical measures will, over time, I believe, help to ensure Northern Ireland's prosperity and to reduce community divisions.
I come now to the issue of political development over the past 12 months. As the House will be aware, matters have now progressed to the point where plenary meetings between the Government and the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland began on Monday of this week. This is the first time since the constitutional convention met in 1976 that the main parties have come together around the same table to discuss their common future. I am sure the House will join me in acknowledging that this can only be regarded as a positive step forward. It represents the culmination of some 18 months of careful negotiation between the British and Irish Governments and the four Northern Ireland parties, and we must all hope that—now that round table talks have become a reality—further, substantial progress will be possible.
Although it is right to acknowledge the positive progress that has been made, the House will not be surprised if I continue to counsel caution, as I have since this process began. It is still early days and there are many major issues yet to be addressed. Much hard work remains to be done. In that context, I am sure that the House will understand that I would not regard it as appropriate to go into detail about the issues that are currently under consideration. Hon. Members will appreciate that if the talks are to make orderly and substantive progress, that is best done by avoiding the glare of publicity. I can tell the House, however, that serious business is being conducted on the basis set out in my statement of 26 March. All the participants are continuing to display a purposive and

committed attitude, and during this first week of plenary sessions much valuable progress has been made in explaining our respective positions to one another. It remains my intention, of course, to report on these matters to the House as and when a fuller disclosure would be possible.
In the meantime, I should like to extend the warm appreciation of Her Majesty's Government to Sir Ninian Stephen for agreeing to take on the role of chairing the discussions in strand two. As the House will know, Sir Ninian has a distinguished record of public service in Australia and we are fortunate indeed that he has agreed to take up this appointment. It was always understood that whoever was appointed to this job would be a person of special qualities, and it is a tribute to Sir Ninian that his appointment has been so warmly and widely welcomed.
I have explained that I would not regard it as appropriate to dwell on the detailed content of the discussions. It may be helpful, however, if I say something about how I would like matters to progress in the short term. The 26 March statement announced that there would he a gap in meetings of the IGC to provide an opportunity for political dialogue. It was announced subsequently that the gap would run between 26 April and 16 July. The political talks have started, and useful exchanges are taking place. However, because delay arose from the need to resolve a number of difficult and sensitive procedural and other issues, it seems very unlikely that all issues can be resolved before 16 July. The agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government is that a meeting of the intergovernmental conference should he held on that date. However, the Government believe that a basis for a resumption of the talks should be found, and intend to initiate discussions with all the participants—including the Irish Government —to bring this about.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State interpret the word "resumption"? Is he suggesting that the talks cease and then resume in order to have an Anglo-Irish conference meeting?

Mr. Brooke: I said that I thought it unlikely that we would have concluded matters before 16 July when we are due to have an intergovernmental conference. I implied that it was my understanding that the parties participating in the talks would wish the talks to be continued and that I would therefore be initiating discussions with the parties as to how that might be.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that the issue was resolved before the negotiations started, that the date for the next Anglo-Irish conference meeting was decided and announced, and that he gave an assurance that that date would be honoured even if—I believe that these were his words—the meeting had to take place in Lagos? Will he confirm on record in the Houses of Parliament that, in effect, it is not a matter for discussion with the Irish Government or with the parties, but a matter on which agreement has already been reached?

Mr. Brooke: I confirm what I said before, which was that there was agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government that a meeting of the intergovernmental conference would be held on 16 July. I went on to say, when I responded to the hon.


Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), that it was my impression that the parties would wish to find a way of continuing the talks and that we should need to initiate discussions as to how that could be done.
As the talks process takes its course, the Government will continue to pursue their aim of seeking to identify institutions and arrangements which will reflect and promote the further development of good relations within Northern Ireland, among the people of Ireland, and between the two Governments.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State not realise that the voice of reason and sanity suggests that it would be wrong for him to play around with the possibility of future stability in Northern Ireland by having a meeting of the Anglo-Irish conference in the face of substantial talks which are taking place in the Province?

Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I said—and it was the basis on which I made my statement on 26 March and which I reiterated after the intergovernmental conference on 26 April—that the time that we were setting aside was the period between 26 April and 16 July.
In pursuing our aim, we shall seek to ensure that the constitutional rights of both sides of the community continue to be protected. We shall also stand ready to give serious consideration to any proposals which might emerge from the talks and which would involve new political arrangements in Northern Ireland, provided that they were workable, stable and durable, would command widespread support, and would provide an appropriate and fair role for both sides of the community.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend is dealing with what he calls the resumption of talks after the meeting on 16 July. There must be some confusion in the minds of others besides myself. I thought that there was an understanding that the meetings of the Anglo-Irish conference would be suspended while the talks were going on. Is that not the case?

Mr. Brooke: In the statement that I made on 26 March, which was agreed by all the parties, I said that after a subsequent IGC we would indicate the dates which would provide a gap in which talks could take place. I made that statement on 26 March. After the IGC on 26 April, I said that there would not be an IGC between 26 April and 16 July, thus affording a gap in which talks might take place.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: In view of the weeks that have been lost in discussion about the chairman for the second and third stages, is there not a case to be put to the Republican Government that the date of 16 July should now be much more flexible? Is there also not a case to be made that even if that conference meeting is to take place it should do so in Dublin, and certainly not in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Brooke: As I said, the two Governments will meet on 16 July. As I have said to some hon. Members in informal discussions, I am concerned that we should not fudge the issue. There is business which needs to be done within the intergovernmental conference, and which

should, therefore, be done properly and not surreptitiously. We shall, therefore, hold an IGC. We hold such meetings in a rhythm, but the particular rhythm is not a matter of significant importance. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Kilfedder: rose—

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) has already intervened once, but as I saw him first, I will take his intervention first.

Mr. Kilfedder: Even though the Secretary of State has excluded me from the talks—for reasons that I do not understand, as my party is represented in the House and is the only party not involved in the talks—he is aware of my total commitment to their success. On that basis, I appeal to him not to have a meeting of the conference under the Anglo-Irish Agreement on 16 July. So much is at stake and the right hon. Gentleman has said that serious discussions have taken place. I plead with him not to rub the noses of the Unionist people in the dirt—which is how it will be interpreted—by having the meeting on 16 July. I beg him to postpone any meeting under the Anglo-Irish Agreement until stage one of the talks has been completed. I urge the Secretary of State to do that.

Mr. Brooke: To some extent, I am reiterating what I said a moment ago. Two points flow from earlier remarks and I will repeat them in response to the hon. Gentleman. On March 26, I made the statement that had been agreed with all the parties and which was to be the basis on which we would conduct our affairs. When one has such an agreement, which has been hammered out carefully over many months, it is dangerous to interfere with details of it at a later date. The second consideration that I want to make firmly to the House is that we have sought, during all the negotiations which led up to the statement of 26 March and since, to be totally straightforward with the House and not to do things in an underhand manner. There is an agreement to have the intergovernmental conference on 16 July. There is business to be done, and I repeat that it is the intention of the two Governments to have the conference.

Mr. Maginnis: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman keeps reassuring the House that he does not wish to do anything in a surreptitious or underhand way. But has not the whole Anglo-Irish process from 15 November 1985 been surreptitious and underhand? Was the arrangement not arrived at without consultation with the elected representatives? Does not the right hon. Gentleman hold meetings of the Anglo-Irish conference without letting hon. Members know what is on the agenda? Do not those meetings conclude without any open and frank statement about what has been arranged behind closed doors? When the right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to have all the major Northern Ireland parties around the table and when we are moving, one hopes, consistently towards sitting round the table—all of us—discussing matters with the Irish Government in the not too distant future, is it not worth while to consider, instead of sacrificing that opportunity, postponing at least any idea of having another meeting of the conference?

Mr. Brooke: I do not want—and this characterises my exchanges with the hon. Gentleman—to be combative in


response to what he said, but I must admit that I react a little adversely to his remark that the intergovernmental conferences under the Anglo-Irish Agreement are conducted surreptitiously. It is known that they are taking place, and on every occasion a communiqué is published which is put in the Library of the House. I am consistently subjected to massive cross-examination by the media immediately after the conference meets.

Mr. Mallon: I repeat that, in effect, an agreement was made that each party entering the negotiations was aware of that date and of the fact that there was a commitment by both Governments to have the meeting on 16 July. The delay of almost seven weeks so far was not the fault of either Government and should not be another contrived road block against the meeting taking place. I welcome the assurance which the Secretary of State gave three times that the meeting will take place.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concluding remark. All of us who lived through that seven weeks know what happened during that period. A number of different factors contributed to it. That is why I am concerned to initiate talks to see whether we can find a basis for proceeding hereafter.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I hope that, the Secretary of State will forgive the interventions. Many of us had expected him to make today what might have been considered an uncontroversial speech, so we have been somewhat set back by its somewhat controversial nature thus far. As one of those—I think that the Secretary of State will recognise this—who has urged the process forward, who has wished it every success and who has done everything possible to make it succeed, I must emphasise for the Secretary of State the feeling within the Unionist community that, if there is to be a meeting of the intergovernmental conference, that in effect brings the agreed talks process to an end. The Unionist community would not see it in any other way.
The Secretary of State will know that his discussions with the two Unionist party leaders suggested a time band of approximately 10 weeks in which talks would take place. We had hoped to start those talks as soon as the period began from the end of the most recent intergovernmental conference, but matters that did not relate to strand one took up a considerable time during which we were quite happy to proceed with strand one dialogue. We feel that the time lost during that period in dealing with procedural and other matters should be made up and that the Secretary of State should, therefore, have an add-on to the period that he set, so that we can have the same time band available for talking. We are prepared to intensify our efforts, and to put in more hours each day and more days each week. I hope that the Secretary of State will meet us on that issue.

Mr. Brooke: I do not know where the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was imputing controversy in my speech, except in the particular matter that has prompted a number of interventions. I did not seek to be controversial in other parts of my speech. In the part that has prompted interventions, I was concerned—as I sought to say in answer to earlier questions—that the Government should continue to be open and should not be thought to be doing something under the counter. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that we envisaged a

period of about 10 weeks. The periods of eight weeks and 12 weeks were regarded as possible brackets, and we settled on 10 weeks. I acknowledge that we lost a number of weeks because of the procedural discussions to which I referred.
Given the fact that we sought to get all three strands of the talks completed in the 10 weeks, I am not at all confident that if we had dealt with what I described as procedural matters in the margins rather than dealing with them head on, we should not have got into separate and severe difficulties. The talks have benefited by getting those out of the way and from everyone knowing how we proceed hereafter. The statement of 26 March was the basis on which the talks should occur. As a general statement, the whole process is better if we know the firm basis on which we are proceeding. That is why I was proposing to initiate talks with other parties about what we might do hereafter.
If progress can be made—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Brooke: Yes. I have sought to accommodate the House tonight.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This is a vital matter. I have the support of all my colleagues from the Unionist side. This is a very serious matter. We were given a time limit. When the Secretary of State consulted the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and myself, the first document that he gave us had brackets in it and no dates. However, he assured us that we would have at least 10 to 11 weeks to carry out the process. We said that we did not know whether that would be time enough, but we agreed to give that time. Now we are not getting that time.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) was right. The Unionist people will feel that they have been betrayed. They will not tolerate leaders who will be part of that betrayal. I will certainly play no part in telling my people that we cannot get 10 weeks now and that we have to do what the Dublin Government say. After all, this territory is part of this United Kingdom. It is not an annex colony of the Republic. Therefore, we need the 10 weeks, which is little enough time to try to achieve a solution to years of agony.

Mr. Brooke: In the context of the discussions that I had with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) in the period leading up to the statement of 26 March, I acknowledge that we discussed many things and there was no way in which we could have dealt with every possible contingency. If we had tried to deal with every possible contingency, we would never have started the talks.
In a situation where one cannot contemplate every contingency in advance, it is sensible to conduct affairs on a basis agreed by everyone. If an unforeseen situation arises, collective discussions would be required to consider what should be done thereafter. That is what I was proposing.

Mr. Barry Porter: In an attempt to be helpful, if circumstances have changed since the statement of 26 March, which I had understood to involve a de facto suspension of the IGC and time limits, it does not seem to me that 16 July is sacrosanct. I should have thought that rational and reasonable people in Dublin would


understand if more time was given for discussions as some hon. Members are suggesting. Surely that is the pragmatic and sensible way forward.

Mr. Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will not try to become involved in a gloss on the statement of 26 March. If I may take a different legislative example from the affairs of this House, when the House passes a Bill it is for others to interpret it thereafter, rather than for hon. Members, although we may individually try to help our constituents to understand that Bill. The words in the statement of 26 March were carefully honed and we had spent much time agreeing them. The statement states the basis on which we would be going forward.
I said earlier that the intergovernmental conference under the Anglo-Irish Agreement was a necessary meeting for us to carry out proper business which needs to be done. I repeat that I was concerned that we should not try to do that by some other means which might have been regarded as surreptitious and underhand. I was concerned that we should do these things openly.
I hope that it will be possible in discussions between the parties to discover a way through these matters. In the meantime, the business of Government must necessarily proceed on its present footing and the order before the House for approval today therefore remains essential. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) in congratulating the Secretary of State on the award that he received yesterday evening. That was important and I hope that the spirit in which it was given and the hopes contained in the giving of it might permeate our debate this evening.
I welcome the appointment of Sir Ninian Stevens. I trust and hope that he will get down to his task of chairing the second strand of talks soon. He is a man of distinction and a man about whom, despite all the digging, no one seems to have found anything that would render him unacceptable as chairman of the conference. That in itself must be a considerable achievement in that someone somewhere in the past 20 or 30 years has not left his fingerprints on the history of Ireland or made unacceptable statements.
When we began this debate we had more grounds for optimism than we have had for many years about the political future of Northern Ireland and I trust that those grounds for optimism will remain. On behalf of the Opposition, I express our good wishes to all the participants in the negotiations which began last Monday. We sincerely hope that arrangements will be agreed that will allow direct rule to be replaced by a much more effective system of devolved government with the consent of all the parties in Ireland and subject to agreement by referendum in both parts of Ireland.
We would like to hope that this was the last occasion on which we were seeking to renew direct rule. I am sure that all hon. Members share the view of the Labour party. Obviously direct rule has not been an entirely negative system. Some progress has been made over the years. For example, the urban landscape of Northern Ireland has

improved immeasurably over the past 20 years as a result of the activities of the Housing Executive and the various area, rural and urban schemes to improve the appearance of places such as Derry and Belfast. We must congratulate the various parties involved in direct rule in Northern Ireland on achieving that in co-operation with the people of Northern Ireland. They have given quite remarkable facelifts to many towns. I have visited Northern Ireland frequently over the past 25 years and I have seen the changes that have taken place. That is a tribute to the Ministers involved and to the people in Northern Ireland whose ideas and schemes were carried out.
I also welcome the Secretary of State's comments about the last SACHR report on the funding of voluntary schools. That is important and it must be examined and explored to discover what help can be provided.
The Opposition must place on record our congratulations to the Government on their work in seeking to improve community relations and on the programme for education for mutual understanding and the curriculum changes. Those are important issues. They do not attempt to destroy people's beliefs or ideals. They try to promote understanding of other people's beliefs and ideals. As the Secretary of State said, strength can come from a diversity of tradition rather than from a monolithic acceptance of matters. That is to be welcomed. However, I still regret what I regard as the political mistake that the Secretary of State made in the past year when he banned Glor Na nGael. I hope that the problem will soon be overcome and that if Glor Na nGael reapplies for funds it may get them.
It is worth reflecting for a moment on the present unacceptable state of affairs in Northern Ireland. Despite the gains that have been made, none of us can be proud of the conditions that have been allowed to prevail in what is, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) pointed out, meant to be part of the United Kingdom. Most obviously, that has been apparent in the violence which, sadly, the Secretary of State had to catalogue for us earlier. Yesterday, another victim was murdered in a particularly brutal and horrendous fashion. We extend our sympathy to the family and fiancée of Private Harrison and to the families of all those who have been killed or damaged, either physically or mentally, as a result of the conflict of the past 20 years.
Coupled with the physical tragedy of violence is the moral tragedy of unemployment and the economic wasteland of many parts of the Province. Tens of thousands of people in the Province, especially young people below the age of 25, are condemned to a bleak future while those deep-rooted economic and social problems persist.
Of course, direct rule is not responsible for that state of affairs. But it has one crucial defect that prevents those difficulties from being overcome. Quite simply, for all the good intentions of Ministers of whatever party, direct rule does not reflect the reality of society in Northern Ireland, except in a negative sense. It is the second option of nearly the whole of the population of Northern Ireland. It does not command the consent of a substantial section of the population as a first option and, because of that, it does not allow effective Northern Irish involvement in decision-making. It involves an unsatisfactory relation between this House and Northern Ireland, whereby we have to take decisions which should more properly be made by the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. I am sure that few hon. Members from this island would


welcome the intrusion of Westminster into their constituencies to the degree, detail and level that pertains to Northern Ireland. We would feel that such matters should be satisfied locally.
There is an absence of agreement on institutions that reflect the geographical reality of Northern Ireland, sharing as it does the island of Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. Institutions that are capable of furthering the mutual interests of Northern Ireland and the Republic are vital. Despite some of the difficulties that have become apparent this evening and that demonstrate the scale and difficulty of what has to be overcome, we hope that the talks that are taking place at the moment will put into place institutions that will help to eradicate terrorism, and will be more adapted to the task of economic regeneration.
Any new arrangements must be in harmony with the realities of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland rather than be imposed with the aim of keeping the lid on the area's problems. We need to unleash the constructive energies of the people of Northern Ireland, with the aim of creating a land in which there are neither executioners nor victims, but people living in reasonable content, one with another.
During the past 18 months, the Labour party has taken as its line on the talks and the discussions about the talks that we would do all that we could to help those talks to be established and to take place. We felt that we could best do that by keeping our mouths shut and by not giving running commentaries on every turn and twist of the negotiations. That self-denial has kept myself and my hon. Friends more off the television than on it which, for politicians approaching a general election, is the supreme sacrifice. However, it is not the same degree of sacrifice that has been expected of the people of Northern Ireland, nor is it the sacrifice that the people of Northern Ireland will have to make if the talks break down. We listened carefully to the entire contents of the Secretary of State's statement on 26 March. That complete statement had the support of the Labour party, and it still has.

Mr. William Ross: I sometimes think that there is nothing in this world as permanent as that which is labelled "temporary" or, in this case, "interim". Like, I am sure, all hon. Members in the Chamber, I have noted the fact that for weeks the newspapers, radio and television have all been saying that this is the first time for 16 years that the leaders of the three constitutional parties have sat down together at the same table to talk. Those same news outlets never add that such a remark could be made only in relation to talks on constitutional issues or to talks that have regard to constitutional issues. The reality is that the three leaders have met on other occasions about issues that are important and of benefit to the people of Ulster. We have never found any real difficulty in doing that.
The three parties have also united on a number of occasions against the Government; the latest occasion being this morning in the Northern Ireland Committee, when we did so successfully. We have done so whenever we have protested against Government legislation—this has happened time after time—yet it seems to have passed the news media by. They never seem to pick up the fact that the people of Northern Ireland agree on many issues

affecting Northern Ireland. Indeed, apart from constitutional and security issues, the parties are far more ready to talk about their major concerns than are their counterparts in the parties of Great Britain. I have noted that the parties which form the major political institutions in the House and in this part of the country have never made any real effort to reconcile their views. Where was the reconciliation of view on the poll tax, over the present controversy about the health service, or over the issues of a federal Europe, the exchange rate mechanism or the single European currency? Those are matters of the greatest importance on which there should be consensus and a national view, but that does not happen.
The parties in Great Britain may need a lead on that which they are providing in Northern Ireland—discussions between the parties—and, if so, I have no doubt that some of us would be prepared to suggest the name of a chairman or two, but not, I think, that of an ex-Prime Minister. That would not be conducive to peace and stability in any discussions that might take place.
Surely the fact that 19 years have passed since the Stormont Parliament was closed by street violence and that nothing has been put in its place is a matter of concern to us all. It certainly concerns many minds outside, if not inside, this House. The present effort to end the impasse is the result of the initiative not of the Secretary of State, but of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who ensured that a commitment to seek changes was written into the manifestos of the two Unionist parties at the last election, that that manifesto was put to the people, and that the mandate that they sought was given by the Unionist population, the result being the present discussions. That item of political and constitutional business has cost our parties dear in time, trouble and political capital. We have no wish to see the effort wrecked by malignant forces or by foolishness on the part of those in high places.
The whole process very nearly came to grief last July and the momentum was only slowly restored, with some severe hiccups between then and the end of March this year. It appears to me that today the Secretary of State has dealt a further deadly blow to the process. 1 could hardly credit that anyone in his position would behave with the rank insensitivity that he showed to the House today.
It would be an act of the greatest folly to stop the present momentum, so painfully achieved. It needs rather to be kept going and to have further impetus given to it. As the matter of the 16 July meeting is a United Kingdom decision—for we are talking about United Kingdom territory—I hope and pray that the Secretary of State will make the right decision. For the Government know perfectly well that the long delay in reaching the present stage was not the fault of the Unionist parties. The question of an independent chairman reared its head only at a late stage. As a result of that, the timescale has slipped. There is no good reason why the timing of the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish conference should not slip in concert with the timetable of the talks. Even a few weeks could make a vast difference, especially as I understand that my right hon. and hon. Friends are more than prepared to work overtime.
Why should the process be wrecked by insistence on a meeting on 16 July? There are those in the Unionist community who would say that it is simply another attempt to hammer home to Unionists the real strength of


the Dublin input into the governance of Northern Ireland. If the process stops, if it is wrecked by insistence on a meeting on 16 July, it will be difficult to restart it. It will probably prove impossible. If that meeting takes place, it will only reinforce the belief in the Unionist community that the Governments bear ill will towards the discussions. It is certain that if the participants go off on a long holiday for the summer before reaching firm conclusions, we shall come back to a vehicle that is totally bogged down and likely never to run again.

Mr. Barry Porter: It seems to me that there is a strong argument for flexibility on the matter. It does not matter very much who caused the slowing down of the process. I understand that the Taoiseach of the Republic will be in London tomorrow. Would that not be an appropriate opportunity for discussions about the flexibility of 16 July? I do not want 16 July to take on similar significance to 12 July. We should start chatting about that.
Let us not look back at whose fault it is that the process has taken all this time. Those are arguments between all the parties involved. It would be disastrous if one date had the effect that the hon. Gentleman suggests. If there is an opportunity to speak to the Taoiseach tomorrow, I am sure that he would understand, if not accept.

Mr. Ross: The Secretary of State and his colleagues will have heard what has been said from their own Benches. When Mr. Haughey is in London to see the Prime Minister there will be a real opportunity for them to discuss the matter and reach firm conclusions. The matter is serious and we all know perfectly well that the process is not open-ended. We have no wish that it should be open-ended. I know that the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party has said that the talks could go on and on almost for ever, but that is not the way that we see it. We want to see firm conclusions reached fairly soon. There is no benefit in trailing the thing on. We all know each other's positions and we have a fair idea of the perimeters of our freedom of action. There is no reason for long delay.
If there is an attempt to keep the talks going until the next election, some people may say that the SDLP was waiting and hoping for a Labour party victory when it might make further advances towards the ideal of a united Ireland. Personally, I do not believe that that ideal would be advanced whichever of the parties that are most likely to form a Government wins the election, so to wait for that length of time could be a fairly futile operation.
We all know that in the run-up to the elections preceding the Sunningdale fiasco the Unionist electorate was fed a marvellous diet of misrepresentations as to the course of action that some Unionists intended to take. The ballot papers were marked and counted and the boxes were put away for a few years. Not all those who were involved in politics at that time were deceived. Those of us who now sit on these Benches were among the folk who were not deceived. That lesson taught the Unionist population of Northern Ireland, not least those who are in this House, a great deal about deceit and weasel words. Ever since that time we have paid attention not to the frothy expressions that we often hear from political leaders about good will or to other helpful expressions, but to the acts committed by Governments. I must tell the

spokesman for the Conservative party who is in the House this evening that the record of his party is not one which I consider honourable. The present position on the government of Ulster is a gross affront to democracy in general and particularly to the House, which is run, as those of us who were here in the late 1970s know, by the most rigid application of majority rule. I have stated before and I make no apology for stating again that democracy is rather wider than a majority of one. In the 1970s I saw a majority of one being more than sufficient to maintain a party in office on several occasions.
I can appreciate, and I am sure that the Secretary of State appreciates, the feelings of the Unionist population of Northern Ireland when they see their will so blatantly ignored so often. In any democratic society there must be recognition of the rights of minorities. The Unionist population of Northern Ireland is a minority within this kingdom. I have to tell the Secretary of State and the Government whom he represents that that minority's rights have been neither recognised nor respected by his predecessors. I consider that a grave affront to the democratic process. I have scant sympathy with those who preach democracy elsewhere and flatly refuse to practise it at home to any normal, reasonable standard.
Having said that, I appreciate that the perimeters of the democratic process cannot be expanded to the point where the decision of the ballot box is completely ignored—within any organisation. A majority cannot be constantly thwarted by a minority because that gives to the minority the right that should always be reserved for the majority.
This House is the first to complain if elected representatives cannot form the government in places such as Burma. Yet for 20 years it has denied any role—perhaps that is not quite right and I should say any meaningful role —to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. If that were happening anywhere else, the House would be afloat with early-day motions condemning the sort of rule that we have seen in Ulster, and under which we have lived for the past 20 years. We need a system in Ulster which can withstand the shocks of violent men and violent organisations and which can deliver a service of good government to the people of Northern Ireland which is so sadly lacking at present.
The Government have always had it in their power to improve the unity of the kingdom by applying to Northern Ireland the same methods of security, administration and law-making as they use for the rest of the country. The suggestion to have a Select Committee has never been adopted. There is a motion on the Order Paper at present, tabled by the leaders of the two Unionist parties, calling for that. There is no good reason why Bills should not be used to legislate for Northern Ireland.
I found it interesting yesterday, when I was in Committee discussing a Bill on the forfeiture of the profits of drug trading, to discover that there were three measures —one for each of the legal jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. They are all designed to come into operation on 1 July. The Scottish one was available only in draft form, but that did not matter. If such measures were consistently applied to Northern Ireland, even that would be a slight improvement. I hope that the Government will take not only such a small, tottering step, but a major step and include Northern Ireland in United Kingdom legislation whenever it includes Wales and Scotland. That would be well received by everyone in the Province and would certainly make the life of those in the House a lot easier.
The IRA is another factor in the equation which, although mentioned in earlier debates, has not been discussed very much in this one. It has its own agenda and its campaign of genocide and murder will not stop at least until it achieves its agenda—a united Ireland from which the British influence is totally removed. As I said earlier, by "British influence" I do not mean soldiers standing on street corners, but those who vote for the British connection, call themselves British and carry British passports. The IRA believes that all those people are British, and it is perfectly correct to say that. We are British; that is why we are being killed—it is for no other reason, and is a matter of national identity.
That national identity has been weakened by Government action during the past 20 years which has been an encouragement to the IRA. That is well enough known to the Secretary of State, a man quite capable of grasping all the nuances of the position in Northern Ireland. I cannot understand why he and his equally intelligent and able predecessors have failed to act out the logic of their understanding of the situation, rather than continually proceeding in a manner which they knew could never succeed. I hope that the present Secretary of State will go down in history as the person who grasped the nettle and did something positive.
Another problem, which annoys me intensely, and I am sure also annoys the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), is the impression given by the news media, churchmen and other well-meaning people that the IRA would stop murdering people if only the SDLP would reach political agreement with the Unionist parties. It is an act of great wickedness to try to perpetuate that myth, as it is intended to mislead people about the IRA's agenda. That proposition also seems to suggest that the IRA will be influenced by decisions taken by the SDLP, and so implies that the IRA will do what the SDLP asks. That is a gross affront to nationalist representatives because, in reality, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has no influence or control over the IRA. That sickening and obnoxious falsehood is constantly trotted out. I know that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh would be the first to admit that he cannot influence the actions of the IRA or even Sinn Fein, whose members they and we have faced often enough, at polling stations and elsewhere, to know that the SDLP and the IRA are not exactly good friends.

Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Member is correct to mention the occasions when there is a difference between the SDLP and the IRA-Sinn Fein, but he will recall that the SDLP recently put much effort into trying to arrive at a common platform and an agreed nationalist campaign with the IRA's Sinn Fein, so we cannot say that there is an absolute barrier between the two.

Mr. Ross: One of the regrettable elements in the nationalist politics in Northern Ireland is that, on occasion, tribal pressures force people to behave in a way that they might not wish to.

Mr. Mallon: I had intended to respond to the hon. Gentleman's benign references to me and my party. However, I shall deal with the malign intervention—if I may call it that—of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). At no stage was there ever any suggestion of a common platform between my party and Sinn Fein. It has asked for it on numerous occasions and been told

that it will not get it. It did not get it in the past, and will never do so in the future, and it is malicious to suggest otherwise.
I shall expand on the point made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). We have never suggested for one moment that we have any control over anybody in the north of Ireland who commits violence, and we do not—I readily admit that. But we have said_ that, if there were agreement between the parties at the negotiations, and that agreement was recognised by some sort of mandate—we would suggest referenda in the north and south—it would have a potent effect on public opinion in the whole of Ireland and would make it more difficult for the men of violence to operate. I readily admit that it would not stop them, but it would make it much more difficult for them to operate and make it much easier for the political process and to do what we must do in the island of Ireland.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman responded to me in the terms that I had expected. But I do not agree with his conclusions. I do not believe that it would he any easier to deal with Sinn Fein and its violent wing, the IRA, because they would see that there was something to be gained. They often tell us that they have made tremendous sacrifices in the nationalist population which they will not forget. They say that they will not give up, but will continue the struggle until the last vestige of British influence is removed from the island of Ireland. I say to Sinn Fein spokesmen and their IRA gunmen that the unionist population has also paid a high price to remain British. Anyone who thinks that we shall forget those who died in defence of the freedoms and values that sent people such as me to this place had better think again. We are not defeated by, or afraid of, the IRA. As a people we have paid a tremendous price, and we have no intention of surrendering our British heritage.

Rev. William McCrea: Now that we are being offered the hope that some political settlement will take away support for Sinn Fein or the IRA, will the hon. Gentleman think back to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, when we were promised the very same thing? In reality, in recent by-elections, the Sinn Fein vote has increased rather than decreased.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member should have restrained himself because I was coming to that point. As he has intervened on it, perhaps it is unnecessary for me to take it further. However, the reality is that in Northern Ireland about 100,000 people vote consistently for the IRA. Sometimes that support has fallen to 70,000 or 80,000 and sometimes it has increased to 120,000. On one occasion when the old Nationalist party decided not to contest elections to this place, its vote increased to 155,000. That was in 1955. In round terms, however, the IRA's vote is 100,000, taking into account tactical voting here and there. There are supporters of the IRA in Northern Ireland and, as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster knows, they have always been there. They will not go away. They happen to believe in the politics, as it were, of the IRA. They happen to believe in violence and they practise it. Anyone who shuts his eyes to the brutal realities does Northern Ireland, himself, this country and above all the people of Northern Ireland no good. The supporters of the IRA have always been present and they always will be.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the perceived co-operation at district council level between members of the SDLP and Sinn Fein elected councillors causes considerable confusion and makes it difficult for us to understand exactly where the SDLP and its elected representatives stand on many issues?

Mr. Mallon: We elected a member of the hon. Gentleman's party—the Ulster Unionist party—as chairman of the Newry and Mourne council, which the SDLP controls.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has made a seated interjection. I have no doubt that he will be able to make a speech later.
I thought that I had covered that to which the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) referred in his intervention, when I said that tribal politics are a powerful force in Northern Ireland. I know that the SDLP sometimes has to play footsie with the more violent elements of its own community to gain, perhaps, long-term benefit. I think that it is mistaken to do so. It pays a heavy price when it is seen to be playing around with such folk. Surely it should oppose them ferociously whenever it is presented with the opportunity to do so. The IRA and its Sinn Fein mouthpieces operate in areas where Unionists are pretty few in any event. If the SDLP was prepared to oppose them on every occasion in those areas, it would eventually, slowly but surely, overcome the men of violence, it being a moderate party. If it cannot overcome them in its own camps, it cannot expect the Unionist population to win elections on the Bogside, in the Creggan or in west Belfast. The only party that can defeat Sinn Fein in those areas is the SDLP.

Mr. Mallon: Has it struck the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) are sitting in this place by the grace and favour of Provisional Sinn Fein? If it were not for Provisional Sinn Fein, neither hon. Member would be a Member of this place. Has that not struck the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman may make that allegation—

Rev. William McCrea: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it correct for an hon. Member to say that another hon. Member is here by the grace of the murder gangs of the constituency, especially when my constituency and my family have suffered more from the murderers than any other Member of this place?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Every hon. Member is responsible for the comments that he or she makes. I hope to be able to call the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) shortly, when he can refute any allegations that have been made.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely it is out of order for any hon. Member to say that someone is a Member of this place by the grace and favour of those who violate the law and engage in murder. That is what has been said. It has been said that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) is here by the grace and favour of the IRA. Surely that is not in order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is my judgment that that has not been said. I interpreted the intervention of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) to mean that a candidate stood and, therefore, divided the vote, and that as a result various things took place. I hope that all those who are in their places will be called to speak in the debate so that they can express their own points of view on the matter.

Mr. Ross: I think that some light can be shed on the tribal politics of Northern Ireland by saying that not all those who belong to a certain religious or nationalist tribe will vote for the same candidate in an election. That is known by those who represent the Democratic Unionist party, and it has been discovered by many others in the past within the Protestant-Unionist-British tribe. There are divisions, however, which have led to my right hon. and hon. Friends and I sitting on the Opposition side of the Chamber while those who represent the DUP, for example, sit on the Government Benches. I think that everyone appreciates that.
I fought and held the old Londonderry seat on several occasions when there was a clear Catholic—which I assume to be a nationalist—majority within it. Among those whom I defeated was the leader of the party of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, and that took some people by surprise. That happened only because there were many Roman Catholic Unionists within the constituency. My majority was considerable. I believe that it was about 12,500.

Mr. Mallon: That is a distortion of the facts.

Mr. Ross: It is not. Where did the votes come from? The hon. Gentleman has not answered that question. I hope that he will bear it in mind that those who happen to go to the Roman Catholic church on a Sunday morning do not necessarily vote for the SDLP on the following Thursday. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) enjoys considerable support from that community in his constituency, as we all do. That is why there will never be a united Ireland. The reality is that an overall majority of the population, leaving aside the religious and apparent tribal divisions that we suffer—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: I should like to finish my speech, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that in Omagh a member of Sinn Fein was put into the chair of the council by the votes of the SDLP? In Magherafelt, however, an SDLP member took an honour from Her Majesty the Queen. I understand that it was an MBE. The other members of the SDLP voted against that person being a member of the party.

Mr. Ross: I thought that those matters were well known in Northern Ireland. I am happy, however, for the hon. Gentleman to broadcast them in the House, perhaps to a wider audience. I hope that they will be taken on board, so that it is understood that things are not quite as simple in Northern Ireland as some folks would have them.
The nonsensical process of renewal that we are going through this evening has been taking place year after year and for longer than I have been a Member of this place, and that is longer than many others. It is a reality that effort after effort has been made to buy off the Republican


population in Ireland—both the constitutional and the violent Republicans—for far too long. I hope that this will be the last time when we go through this bloomin' nonsense, for that is all that it is. I hope that it is the last time that I have to be insulted and frustrated by patronising words from the Secretary of State and his minions. In reality, their words mean that they intend to continue denying me my birthright as a British citizen. The people of Ulster have paid a high enough price. It is about time that they received the goods for which they have been paying in blood and misery. They have asked to be treated fully and permanently as members of this nation and kingdom. That is what they believe they are, and that is why they are British. We believe that we are part of the kingdom. If we are treated as such in all respects, many of the problems with which the Secretary of State and his predecessors have had to contend will vanish.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I want to pay a tribute to the Secretary of State and congratulate him on the award that he received last night, I believe. He must have moved quickly after the conference in Belfast to get there on time. I think that he should know that many within the community, from all quarters, appreciate that it is a recognition of the tirelessness with which he has worked in initiating the negotiations and getting them under way.
I also want to put on record the fact that substantial efforts have been successfully made to try to improve the lot of the entire community in Northern Ireland. It is seen in various ways. It is seen in the way in which people within the Northern Ireland Office have striven enormously against all the odds—violence at home and propaganda abroad—to bring inward investment to the north of Ireland, to create jobs and, by doing so, to raise the standard of living for us all. As the Secretary of State said, unless everyone in the north of Ireland feels part of society and receives what one expects from society—a decent job and the ability to look after one's family—we shall have difficulties in the relation to the whole question of unrest.
In particular, it would be wrong not to identify the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), who has responsibility for economic development and who seems to spend so much energy and time abroad trying to do just that. It is not just the hon. Gentleman exclusively; it is something that the Northern Ireland Office is doing as a team and is doing as successfully as possible in the circumstances. How much more successful could that be if we did not have the rancour and violence and the obscenity of the disrespect for human life in the north of Ireland? If that could be done successfully, we could start building rather than have this constant destruction. It is only right to make those points, because they are factual and it is fair to say so.
I also want to reply to one of the accusations winch was made against our party. I shall not deal with the obvious inaccuracies. Those who know the electoral situation in the north of Ireland will recognise them for exactly what they were, and that was at least an evasion of the facts. I remind again those who believe it because they want to believe it, or simply will not listen no matter how often it is said, that the political life of the Social Democratic and Labour party has no outside influences. It is not beholden to any Church or Church grouping, to any set of

businesses or capital, to any trade union or to any quasi-political grouping. It has no monkeys on its back, and that includes Sinn Fein and any other section of the community.
The strength of our party, small though it is, has been the fact that it can make its own decisions without looking over its shoulder at anyone else within the community, be it any religious grouping or those involved in unions or the use of capital, and that is a strong position. It is a position that I would recommend to other political parties in the north of Ireland. Every time one has to consult or nod in the direction of groupings which are not political parties, one weakens one's position. I shall leave the matter there, and I shall not enter into the type of events that we have seen so far.
We are involved in a serious debate. It is serious because—this is again one of the weaknesses in the argument which has been used so far—if political agreement is achieved, no matter how difficult it is or how long it takes, no matter what opposition is put up to it. as there will be, such debate will strengthen the position of the political process on the island of Ireland.
At the end of the day, if we see through our own prejudices, the IRA campaign is not constitutionally aimed. The issue at stake is the issue between the political process delivering peace and stability on the island of Ireland and those who believe in violence succeeding not in obtaining their objectives but in pursuing their violence ad infinitum. That is where the problem lies with our negotiations. I want to see those negotiations succeed for that reason, and that reason is paramount in our thinking.
There is a second point. We in the community in which we live, I as a person, we in our political party, probably know more about the effects of violence and the effects of the type of activities of the IRA and its fellow travellers than anyone else. Those who hurl abuse in the way that they do should perhaps look at the way in which, over the past 20 years, we have had to stand up against that, not in terms of words or theories but by walking into villages to polling stations with weapons trained upon one and upon the electorate, with messages of intimidation going round saying that those who voted for the SDLP would be dealt with. We had to face that and face it down for 20 years, and that was not easy. That still continues, in its own subtle ways. So when we are talking about the understanding of violence in the north of Ireland, do not rule us out, because we probably have a better understanding of it than most.
It is for that reason, among other reasons, that I want to see the type of political agreement which would allow for a system of justice in the north of Ireland which of itself would not solve the problem but which would remove the peripherals from the problem and let it be seen in its starkness. That is the effort by the Provisional IRA and other paramilitary groups to usurp the right of the people to express their views democratically and to resolve their problems through negotiation, understanding and dialogue, and through peaceful political means.
That is why debate is so important, and that is why we are wasting our time with the type of petty abuse that we have seen and heard so far. That is why negotiations are difficult and that is why, unless we start to understand each other's positions and at least listen to them without the type of mischief that we have heard so far, we will not get to grips with the problem.
I wish the negotiations well, and I hope that, as we go further down the road, that understanding will grow. But it will not happen quickly. There is no quick fix for the problem. There is no quick way in which we can deal with it. But it is better to take time to get it right than to have a quick fix and again have the past and present failures of the attempts to obtain a political solution.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought from his words a moment ago that he was saying that the IRA was simply practising mindless violence and thuggery for the sake of it, and that it did not have a constitutional objective. Surely he cannot believe that, because it is well known that the constitutional objective of the IRA and Sinn Fein is a united Ireland.

Mr. Mallon: I do not believe that, so I did not say it, and I did not say it because I do not believe it. The aim of the IRA is not guaranteed, and it is not a political or constitutional resolution on the island of Ireland. The IRA itself has said that its intention is to grab power in Ireland by the ballot paper and the Armalite, but it cannot form part of the democratic process by forcing its views on people at the point of a gun. That is where the hon. Gentleman misunderstands my remarks.
Neither of the two points that I want to make about direct rule is complimentary. There is something wrong when, after 20 years of direct rule, two blatant examples of injustice are still to be seen in statistics relating to employment and education. I am not placing blame on the present Secretary of State or his Ministers, because direct rule has existed for 20 years. Nor am I placing the blame only on the present Government, because it must be shared by both the parties that have governed Northern Ireland since direct rule was imposed.
There must be something radically wrong when such an imbalance of employment exists not among Protestant or Catholic firms, but in Government Departments, which are not run by those who have the hang-ups or the prejudices that are indigenous to the north of Ireland. Blame cannot be attached to bigoted Protestants or to bigoted Catholics for the situation that I describe. The figures—which come from the Northern Ireland civil service equal opportunities commission—speak for themselves.
At a senior level, the percentage of Catholics working for the Department of Economic Development is 6.7 per cent. For the Department of Agriculture, the figure is 10.2 per cent; Department of Education, 16.9 per cent.; Department of the Environment, 8–2 per cent.; finance and personnel, 23–1 per cent.; Department of Health and Social Services, 13–9 per cent.; and for the Northern Ireland Office itself, 14·9 per cent. The average figure is 14·4 per cent.
Why has that imbalance not been dealt with after 20 years of direct rule? That is a reasonable question for someone from my perspective to ask, and even for any hon. Member from the Unionist tradition to ask. There must be something wrong with a system that has not allowed such an imbalance to be redressed over 20 years.

Mr. Brooke: I recognise the statistics that the hon. Gentleman gives, and acknowledge his attribution of their source. However, when I think back to the pattern of

employment in the Northern Ireland civil service, consider the figures that now prevail—which, for the service as a whole, approximate to the balance within the two sides of the community—and consider the shift that has been occurring over a period, and which has necessarily occasioned recruitment into the service from the bottom, I see that it is necessarily the case that one will not have in the ascending grades a sufficient number of candidates for promotion to produce a percentage in the highest grades that will be comparable to that for the service as a whole. Is the hon. Gentleman recommending drafting in people to those higher grades from outside the service simply in order to accommodate the figures?

Mr. Mallon: I am not suggesting that—nor would I ever do so. That would be absolutely wrong. The Secretary of State makes a valid point that the situation was so bad at the start of direct rule that even today's figures represent an improvement.

Mr. Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mallon: I will not give way to somone who grossly misrepresents my party's position in a mischievous way —and that is my last word on that subject.
I acknowledge that it will take time to redress the imbalance that I described, and agree that the solution should not be contrived. However, I say again that something must be wrong for such an imbalance to develop and to remain the same after 20 years.

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mallon: I will not give way again. That solves the problem for all of us, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred also to the imbalance in the recurrent spending on education in the north of Ireland. I regret having to present these figures in religious terms, but that is the only way of ensuring proper understanding.
I emphasise that these figures relate to recurring expenditure and not to the capital expenditure differential that arises because of the voluntary option. I refer to the expenditure to which every schoolchild is, by the Government's own definition, entitled as of right. Between 1981 and 1986, there was a differential of £32 million between expenditure on schools attended largely by Protestant children and those attended by Catholic children. Why has that situation been allowed to continue willy-nilly, and without even being known about? Why has it continued, to the detriment of people in the north of Ireland?
At a recent employment equality seminar, the Secretary of State said:
Our aim must be to reach a situation in which there is full equality of opportunity and a fair distribution of jobs across Northern Ireland.
In terms of Government spending on north of Ireland schools, no such equality pertained between 1981 and 1986.

Mr. Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman allow a helpful intervention?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I clearly heard the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) say that he would not give way again. Am I correct?

Mr. Mallon: You are quite correct, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Secretary of State said also:
Catholics suffer more severely from unemployment, and the unemployment rate of Catholics is more than twice that of Protestants …employment and employability lie at the heart of this debate".
If the education of Catholic children suffers to the extent of £32 million, will that not produce an educational deficit that will result in the unemployability to which the Secretary of State referred?
Those are harsh words, but I do not know how to speak about either of those two factors without sounding harsh and blunt. I do not mean to cast any aspersions or lay the blame on anyone, but something is wrong and it is time that we found out where that wrong lies and put it right.
The Secretary of State said that an attempt will be made almost immediately to monitor the position and I welcomed that. We have been trying to monitor it. In 1988 and 1989, the leader of my party, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), tabled some parliamentary questions asking about such things. He was given some figures for grammar schools but not for primary schools because, in the words of the parliamentary reply, such information would be available only at disproportionate cost. Yet a Government-appointed body, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, has unearthed the figures, when hon. Members could not be given them because of the "disproportionate cost", to quote parliamentary replies to my colleague the hon. Member for Foyle in 1988 and in 1989. We should study that, because the matter could have been dealt with much more quickly had it not been for that approach.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has just told the House that he is getting his figures from a Government-sponsored publication. Is it available in the Vote Office, because I feel sure we would all like to be able to study it?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me. I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman were to inquire, he would find that the document was avai[able within the precincts.

Mr. Mallon: I can assure the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) that it is available, and if he wants me to refer to more recent answers to parliamentary questions—January of this year—I am able to do so, but I shall not delay the House any further.
There is something radically wrong when, after 20 years of direct rule, those glaring faults are staring us in the face to such an extent. In pursuit of the aims that the Secretary of State mentioned—some of which I have quoted—will every effort be made to identify what is wrong and to deal with it immediately so that those faults will cease to be a problem? For as long or as short as direct rule continues in the north of Ireland, we can study the situation and give it the same commendation and praise that I have given the Northern Ireland Office for its efforts.
One of the potential benefits of the period of direct rule was that hon. Members who have not got the ideological hang-ups or prejudices that we may have, or indeed the difficulties that many of us could have, could come here with a fresh and clear mind to deal with the problems. When direct rule ended, it would leave us with a clean slate. If we can get those two problems out of the road, the

slate will have been substantially, although not totally, cleaned and that could be an encouragement to the rest of us to reach agreement in the negotiations that would allow us to proceed with a clean slate.

Rev. William McCrea: I have listened with care to the debate and I realise that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is playing to a wider audience than the few in the House tonight, pretending that he is Mr. Reasonable and acting Mr. Softie. There is an old statement that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you do not fool all of the people all of the time. People hearing the hon. Gentleman for the first time, through the modern media, may not have heard the old record played before.
If the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh could not cry "discrimination" he would have had little disadvantage to speak about. I come from a constituency with a far higher rate of unemployment than that in Newry and Armagh. I come from an area in the west of the Province that has greater disadvantage than the constituency of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. Yet I am not charging any Government with deliberate discrimination against anyone or any section of the community; that was the central theme and essence of what has been said in the past 15 or 20 minutes.
I have listened to a number of things in my political career and I have a broad enough back to take it. I know what it is to experience a threat from terrorists just as much as any hon. Member in this House—perhaps more, as those who know my constituency will agree.
I do not come to this House merely with words of threat. Since we last debated this subject, the Secretary of State knows that my family has once again known what it is not merely to experience the threat of terrorism but the slaughter of an innocent young man in his late 20s, gunned down in front of his two little children of four and six. One of those little boys rang his grandmother to call for help saying, "A bad man has shot my daddy." When granny came down it was to see her two grandchildren putting their fingers into the holes where the IRA bullets had gone in, trying to stop the blood flowing from their father's veins. That is the shadow under which I come to the House; that is the reality of the situation. I need no lectures from anyone about intimidation, threat, violence or the possibility of a gun when people go to the ballot box, much less from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh.
I remind the House that in this Chamber tonight it was said that I am here because of the grace and favour of Provisional Sinn Fein. I am here in the same way as everyone else is here—through the ballot box and the wish and will of the majority of people in my constituency to send me here to be their elected representative. I have come here in the face of abuse and terrorism without fear or favour.
It is about time that people outside the House, as well as hon. Members, realised what the people in the constituency of Mid-Ulster have to face under direct rule and what we have endured for the past 20 years and much longer. I listened to a gem from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. Councillors from his party have consistently voted and elected Sinn Fein into positions of power, including the vice-chair and chair in my constituency. It sounded tremendous to those who were


listening—if it had any vestige of truth—when he said, "Our party is not beholden to any church." That is amazing when one considers that when a certain cardinal from a certain church speaks, certain members of a certain party, who are not beholden to any church, will act accordingly.
Then the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, "In our party we have no monkeys on our backs." That was a gem because the Social Democratic and Labour party down the years has been happy to ride, not with a monkey on its back, but on the political achievements of the IRA gunmen, which brought the Anglo-Irish Agreement into reality. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), said, "I cannot allow the killings to continue: that is why I signed the agreement."
The Anglo-Irish Agreement was the fruit of murder and destruction. The SDLP has been happy to accept it as a hard-won reward for much labour; in another place, I believe that the phrase "hard-won wisdom" was used. In my view, the only hard part of the agreement is the harsh reality that it emerged from the end of a gun—as a result of the placing of a bomb and the slaughter of innocent people in the United Kingdom, both here on the mainland and in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State's speech this evening had three main parts. It dealt with security, the economy and constitutional matters, with special reference to the current talks. The House should remember that, on almost every occasion since I came to the House eight years ago when we have debated major legislation to curb the terrorists and destroy the threat to our Province, SDLP Members have voted against that legislation. Without it, meagre though it is, our security forces would not be able to meet the challenge or face the threat.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has sent a good deal of praise across the Chamber to the Conservative Front Bench; there has been a lot of back-slapping. It may fool some people, but the people in the Province know the history and reputation of the hon. Gentleman's party, which certainly do not merit a lecture on how to safeguard the future of Northern Ireland.
As I said, the first part of the Secretary of State's speech dealt with security. On 19 June, the Minister of State gave some figures about terrorist activity in 1990. They were as follows:


Terrorist activity
Number


Shooting incidents
396


Explosions
167


Bombs neutralised
120


Weight of explosives in Kgs.
5,392


Explosions neutralised
15,328


Armed robberies
438


Malicious fires
333


Amount stolen
£1,728,685


Deaths



Civilian
49


Army/UDR (8 Army, 7 UDR)
15


RUC/RUC'R' (7 RUC, 5 RUC'R')
12



A total of 76 people were killed in 1990. The Minister's answer continued with more statistics:


Injuries
Number


Civilian
478


Army/UDR (190 Army, 24 UDR)
214


RUC/RUC`R' (165 RUC, 49 RUC'R')
214


—[Official Report, 19 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 209.].
Those are alarming statistics: they appear again this morning in our local newspapers. We have a long catalogue of terrorist activities and I assure the House that my constituents, and others in the Province, take no comfort from it. Already this year—and we are only in the middle of June—38 people are dead in Ulster. For 20 years, after each major outbreak of terrorism, we have been promised a review that will look afresh at security. Since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, under direct rule, there have been more and more deaths in the Province. The people of Ulster have continued to endure a nightmare under the shadow of terrorism.
In recent months, my constituency has experienced more fear and intimidation than it has known for 20 long years. If the Secretary of State does not accept that, I suggest that he visits the area and speaks to ordinary people there: he will find them gripped by terror. Castlederg has suffered more than any other village in the United Kingdom. In Cookstown a few weeks ago, the IRA tried to wipe out a housing estate, regardless of the deaths and injuries that might result. One hundred houses were affected; many will have to be pulled down, and others have been severely damaged.
Buildings can be rebuilt; that is not the real hurt and heartbreak in the community. In Pomeroy, the IRA tried to slaughter the security forces. They planted a bomb at the police barracks. When a bomb is placed there—a number have been placed there over the years—the police and the Army cordon off the area to ensure that the public do not move into the vicinity. The IRA deliberately planted a second device on that very spot. They care not for person, life or limb: they are murderous scum, and they have no place in any democratic society.
Nevertheless, there is opposition in the House of Commons to the measures that we could take to curb IRA activity. When IRA members are caught in the act and removed, we hear calls for inquiries. We do not hear such calls after the killing of a UDR man or an innocent civilian. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is quick to go on television, and take in as much oxygen as he can. He calls for independent inquiries to establish whether minimum force has been used.
Let me give a example of so-called minimum force. Recently, three murderers—one had killed at least 200 people—entered a town in my constituency. Their intention was to murder again—to kill innocent constituents of mine—but they were intercepted by the SAS. Because the terrorists, not the innocent civilians, were defeated and removed, the cry went up, "Was minimum force used?".
My constituents are sick to the teeth of hearing certain people asking whether minimum force was used when we are talking about the hardest core of terrorists in the United Kingdom, and even further afield. In any event, how could we ensure that minimum force was used? If that question continues to be asked, I suggest that the three


gentlemen who usually ask it—named Faul, Daly and a certain hon. Member of this House—should do something to find out. On the next occasion when there is definite information in my constituency of a terrorist attack—as there was in Coagh a week or two ago—the RUC should telephone the three of them and ask them to go to the police station. There, they should put on the police or Army uniform and go in the vehicle that is to intercept the terrorists. Let them step out of that vehicle and try, with the minimum force, to arrest the murderers. None of those getting out of the vehicle would be likely to get back in it, for the terrorists have never cared who they slaughter, kill and destroy.
We are in the midst of a cruel war. For over 20 years people in our Province have been slaughtered. My constituents, as I attend one funeral after another, have a right to ask, "When will the Government take the measures—under direct rule because they have the responsibility for security—that are necessary to defeat the terrorists?"
We will never talk terrorism away. The terrorists will not melt in the way that snow melts from the bank of a ditch. We recently got 500 additional troops and I thank the Secretary of State for them, but they are totally inadequate to meet the challenge in my constituency. I could take the right hon. Gentleman to a village in my area where, in recent days, five Protestant families have had to move, some to other parts of the Province, some across the water and some further afield. In that same village, 15 young constituents of mine were visited by the security forces to be told that definite information had been found that the names of all 15 were on an IRA murder list. The very heart of that area—15 young men from one village—was to be wiped out by the IRA.
That is the reality of terrorism, and the grip of it is tighter tonight than it has ever been. While I accept, and am thankful for, the 500 additional troops, let us remember that the Chief Constable asked for—demanded, even begged for—400 additional police to be put on the roads. I understand that the Army chiefs have also requested additional forces to meet the challenge of terrorism.
Be it in Mid-Ulster or south Belfast—where a policeman aged 26 was murdered a couple of Saturdays ago—or in north Belfast, where the other morning a young man at his work was murdered, or the young soldier who came to east Belfast last night to make his wedding arrangements with his young bride, that is the reality of the situation. The terrorists are not on the run. They have the community on the run.
Under direct rule, the Government have a God-given responsibility to bring back to the whole or the United Kingdom relative peace, stability and prosperity. I do not accept the statement once made in the House that there is an acceptable level of violence. There is no such thing. There is no room in Ulster for terrorists and there is no place for terrorism in the United Kingdom. Any democratic society that allows terrorists to have the run of the community—to tell people when and where to work and live—has been taken over by, and is in the grip of, terrorism.
I am not talking about somewhere far away, such as the Falklands, where we are facing an aggressor. I am speaking about our mainland and our back door, about a part of the United Kingdom for which the Secretary of

State is responsible, not only under Government but under God. That responsibility involves protecting and ensuring the security of the people of the area.
I stand here without apology, as I have in the past, begging for the lives of my constituents. We are sick of looking at the coffins going down the road. We are sick and broken-hearted as we follow the coffins of young men and women, watching the flower of Ulster being destroyed by a bunch of murderous thugs. Every hon. Member should know the reality of what is happening in a part of Her Majesty's domain.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the tragedy is highlighted when we recall that when a UDR man was murdered and his relatives gathered in the parish church of the village in which he was brought up the coffin could not proceed out of the church—this happened in Holywood parish church yesterday—and the bishop announced that as there was a threat of bombs on the way to the graveyard, the whole procession had to stop? There was then a second threat—coded by the IRA to the police —of a bomb in the graveyard.
That reflects what is happening in Northern Ireland. No matter how many politicians, with all the dedication they may have, sit round a table and hammer out an agreement, people who stoop to such dastardly and sacrilegious acts will not be stopped by political agreements. Does my hon. Friend agree that such people must be put down by the only weaponry that they understand?

Rev. William McCrea: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. It is an absolute tragedy that a funeral procession involving a broken-hearted family, a son and husband having been murdered, could not make its way from the church service to the graveyard without a further threat—not only along the road but in the burial ground as well—to disrupt the proceedings.
That proves beyond a shadow of doubt that there can be no place for terrorists in our society. Unfortunately, there have in the past been apologists for such people. Some have been more concerned for the terrorists than for their victims. It is about time that hon. Members in all parts of the House realised that the broken hearts of the terrorists' victims do not heal in a matter of days or in five years or in the length of the sentence given to the terrorist, if he is caught, who committed the murder. To suggest otherwise is an insult to the broken-hearted people in those families. Not one of 23 murders in Castlederg in my constituency has been solved. There are Ulster Defence Regiment graves throughout the graveyard, bui not one of the people responsible has been brought to justice. Unfortunately, in other parts of the Province, where murderers are brought to justice, they are treated with kid gloves. They are sentenced and given 50 per cent. remission and return to society, many of them to carry on where they left off.
There is a great hurt in our society. It does not matter how long politicians sit around the table. Politicians will never defeat the terrorist or destroy his terrorism by an agreement. The agreement must be within the confines of the United Kingdom, because Ulster people are British. They are a part of the United Kingdom and have paid for that Britishness and for their heritage in being a part of this illustrious kingdom.
Terrorism must be defeated. What has been done to try to withdraw support from Sinn Fein has not worked. In two recent by-elections—in my constituency and in Fermanagh and South Tyrone—the Sinn Fein vote increased. I know that that is not good for the Northern Ireland Office. It is not good for the Anglo-Irish Agreement. But, as an elected representative of Ulster, I am more worried about the lives of my people—I have a right to be concerned—than about statements or statistics that try to prove that the agreement is a big thing and that we shall see the fruits of peace, stability and reconciliation.
The second strand of the speech by the Secretary of State was about the economy and the 13.7 per cent. of the work force who are unemployed. Again, my constituency has the second highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom. I beg the Secretary of State to ensure that the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit are more helpful to local firms that want to develop and that they will encourage some of our great young people who are coming up with tremendous ideas. I have proof that, despite all the promises and advertisements on television, young people have been discouraged and have taken their products outside Ulster, some to the south of Ireland and some to the mainland.
If the Secretary of State believes that competition lies at the heart of the challenge for 1992, he will stop his Ministers privatising Northern Ireland Electricity purely for reasons of party political dogma. It will change a nationalised industry into a private monopoly and a large price will be paid by domestic and industrial users of electricity in Ulster. I listened carefully through six hours of the Minister's statement in Committee. He said nothing to convince hon. Members, whether Labour Members or Northern Ireland Members, that privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity was being done in the best interests of the community in Northern Ireland or that it would improve the competitiveness of our industry, which suffers the highest electricity tariffs in the United Kingdom.
Once again, I listened to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh—who is not here at the moment—talk about discrimination. I have requested scrutiny of the fair employment practices in the offices of several Departments in my constituency. There seems to be no urgency in dealing with that matter because it involves discrimination against Protestants. The three people who were recently appointed to chief posts in the Department of Health and Social Services area covering Magherafelt, Cookstown Dungannon and Armagh were Roman Catholics—not one Protestant was appointed. Of nine mental health posts, eight went to Roman Catholics—not one went to a Protestant.
If the Secretary of State wants fair employment, he will ensure that the Minister gives us fair employment in the Government Departments in my constituency. I am all for fair employment. Few people in Ulster have a better record than mine in terms of fair employment. During 18 years of local government in Magherafelt, 14 of them under the control of the SDLP, the only years of fair employment were the four years when I was chairman of the authority. That is what the Fair Employment Agency says. I need no lectures from any hon. Member about believing in fair employment.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh speaks about discrimination. We in the west of the Province know what discrimination is against the Protestant community.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Over the past 18-odd years, the SDLP has had control of four councils. Roman Catholic employment is 75 per cent. in Londonderry, 88 per cent. in Newry and Armagh, 60 per cent. in Down—the area of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady)—and 60 per cent. in Strabane. The population figures are entirely different. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh lectures us and the Secretary of State about discrimination, but he does not tell us that 12,000 of the 21,000 people recruited into the higher grades of the civil service in Northern Ireland are Roman Catholics—52 per cent. Those are the figures from the FEA, not the figures that the hon. Gentleman used.

Rev. William McCrea: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I remind the Secretary of State of the statistics in a district such as Magherafelt, where 46 per cent. of the population are Protestant and 54 per cent. are Roman Catholics. In the DHSS, 90 per cent. of employees are Roman Catholics. So much for fair employment.
If one plays a record long enough, someone starts to believe it. That is what has happened with the SDLP. In public and private debate—with the Secretary of State, with other Departments and with the world and its cousins—it has played the old record: there is blatant discrimination against the Roman Catholic community.
I do not and will not defend anyone who discriminates against anyone else on grounds of his religious persuasion or party affiliation. We in the Ulster Democratic Unionist party know exactly what that is. As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said before now, it would be most interesting to find out how many of those appointed by Ministers to new boards will come from our party, how many will come from a party that does not even have the power to get one of its members elected to this place—the Alliance—and how many will come from the Conservative party, which at the moment is a fledgling in Ulster. I am sure that the Secretary of State could find other words to describe the position of his party in the Province. It seems that there is patronage—jobs for the boys. That is something to which my party is totally opposed. We stand wholeheartedly for fairness in employment. The person who is best qualified for the job is the person who should occupy the post, whether one likes that person or not.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does my hon. Friend agree that that applies to every department? Take the honours list, for example. If one belongs to any party other than the Ulster Democratic Unionist party and has served as lord mayor of Belfast, one is honoured. But if one happens to be of my religion or my party, one gets no honor. Is not it strange that all the other people who serve on boards and the rest will be honoured, but that the people who happen to belong to my religion or to my party will get no honours, although names have been put forward under the procedures? Can my hon. Friend tell me now how many DUP members have ever been nominated to a board by a Minister? I am not talking about those who have been appointed through councils or housing departments. I am talking about direct appointments to boards.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank by hon. Friend for his intervention, although that question really should be directed to the Secretary of State and his Ministers. Perhaps his question could be followed up and those names supplied. I would say only that one could probably write them on the back of a postage stamp; one would certainly not need a large piece of paper. That is disgraceful given that we are lectured in the House about discrimination and given that a father who wants to employ his son or cousin in his business can be told that he must employ someone else. To be frank, it is brazen cheek. My constituents and I are taking careful note of the situation. I know people who have served the community well, and who have reached out across the community, but whom the Government have never recognised because they come from a certain party or religious persuasion. We await developments with bated breath because there is always another opportunity for discrimination to be rectified. We shall be interested to see exactly who Ministers will consider for the coming honours list.

Mr. Kilfedder: On the subject of discrimination, does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfair for the Secretary of State to have excluded me from these all-important talks—which I genuinely support—even though my party is represented by me in this Parliament, when another party, which does not have a Member of Parliament, is participating?

Rev. William McCrea: As I said earlier, I believe that it is disgraceful that a party that cannot get a candidate elected to this House should have been chosen to come to the constitutional talks and is to provide 10 representatives —the same number as the Ulster Unionist party, the Ulster Democratic Unionist party and the SDLP—when my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) has been discriminated against and when his party is not recognised, even though it has an elected representative in this House—which is regarded as the mother of Parliaments, at the very heart of democracy.

Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend has referred to the mother of Parliaments. Why is it that Unionist Members are also discriminated against on the Committees of this House? A member of the SDLP has been voted on to the Select Committee on Agriculture while other hon. Members are forbidden to serve on Select Committees.

Rev. William McCrea: I trust that that will illustrate the fact that direct rule is not working. The reason why the Ulster Democratic Unionist party representative and a representative from the Ulster Unionist party were removed from the Agriculture Committee, even though those parties are more representative of the agricultural community than is the SDLP, was that they would not bow to the diktat of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
With the SDLP, the back-slapping once again went on; once again we had the prayers and speeches and the softly, softly approach was taken. The SDLP Member in question was recommended by Her Majesty's Government and his election to the Committee was supported by Her Majesty's Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North chaired the Agriculture Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly with great distinction, as was recognised by every section of the Community in Northern Ireland, yet, because he would not bow to the diktat of the

Anglo-Irish Agreement, it was dismissed and regarded as irrelevant, and the authentic voice of the farming community in Northern Ireland was thereby removed.
If one does not toe a certain line, one comes to know what discrimination is really like. We certainly do; we have every evidence and every proof of it. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say about the stewardship of direct rule. In the past year, many of these problems could have been rectified, but they were not. I trust that we shall ge a clear statement that the mistakes of the past and the discrimination against the Unionist and Loyalist community, which has paid a great price for its loyalty, will be rectified and that Northern Ireland Ministers will reward that community in some way.
I must mention another inaccuracy. The Secretary of State talked about controlled schools being mainly Protestant. What he said was accurate as far as it went. I wish to make it abundantly clear, as I do not believe that many hon. Members know this, that controlled schools are not Protestant schools; they are state schools. They are not run by Protestants. Every section of the community is welcomed through their doors including—and it is a vital part—the Roman Catholic community.
Unfortunately, the person who has been elevated to the chief post in the Roman Catholic community in Ulster would refuse at the same time and in the same place to baptise children from the Roman Catholic community who happen to go to a state school and not to a Roman Catholic school. Unfortunately, the House does not know that the doors of our controlled schools are open to everyone in the community. Members of my party, those who belong to the party of my hon. Friend the Member for North Down and those from the Ulster Unionist party have encouraged the whole community to be part of the system of state education and not to go in their own direction.
A vital matter that must be dealt with is the bombshell that was placed before the House tonight. We witnessed not only the rug being pulled from under us, but a bombshell being dropped in the House by the Secretary of State. I am sure that if he reflects on what I said earlier —when I hoped that he would see reason—he will realise that my words were carefully chosen, imploring him to turn back from the precipice and beseeching him to think again.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State cast those words to one side. He mentioned a statement that he made on 26 March about the number of weeks allowed for the constitutional talks. The truth is that there was a delay of seven weeks in the commencement of strand one because one party to those talks would not move to strand one until matters relating to strand two had been decided. A major matter was one that the Unionists did not know about until it was thrust upon them—an independent chairman.
Everyone had come to the table and started the bilateral discussions with the clear understanding that the Secretary of State would be the chairman of the strand two talks.. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister of a foreign country decided otherwise. He would not sit under the Secretary of State who permitted him to walk all over him and to have his way. The same Prime Minister and his Government have told the Secretary of State that the 16 July date will go ahead and that there will be no backing down.
The Secretary of State must realise that the elected representatives of Northern Ireland have put their lives on


the line to participate in the talks. Every participant in those talks is under threat from terrorists. We have put not only our lives, but our reputations with the electorate on the line. Day by day we have to face the propaganda pumped out by the media, much of it against the Unionist population, its elected representatives and the Unionist position. The Secretary of State has decided to cast aside that danger and the fact that our reputations are on the line and he has decided to go ahead with an Anglo-Irish conference for which there is no need.
I am sure that the reason that will be given in due course will be that there are serious matters of security which we need to discuss with the Irish Republic. There have been 20 long years in which to talk about security with the Irish Republic. In my constituency, the Irish Republic is still held to be the haven for the terrorists who murdered people in Castlederg. The Prime Minister of that country has never thrown them out and nor have they, in the sight of Ireland, been brought to justice. If the Secretary of State progresses down that road, he will be regarded—I still appeal to him to change his mind—as having betrayed the long-suffering people whom I represent because trust will have been broken down by such a decision.
The Secretary of State must back down from his decision because if he earnestly believes that the talks are so important to the future of Ulster, he will not allow a conference under the Anglo-Irish Agreement—which has produced nothing in the past to bring real stability to our country—to stand in the way of substantial progress. He knows well that there was to be substantial progress in strand one before we moved to strand two. He is trying to jockey the Unionists into betraying the trust of their people.
I remember when I came into politics 18 years ago and was first an elected representative. It is true that there were those who did not have the courage to stand up in honour for what was a good, right and proper principle. It is true that successive Governments have racked and ruined the reputation of Unionist leaders. However, I must make it abundantly clear that the two leaders of the Unionist community in Ulster will not be broken and their reputations will not be destroyed by anyone. They will act with honour and they will stand by the pledge that they give to the people. There are three strands to that pledge, as the Secretary of State knows full well. I trust that hon. Members who are present will seek to galvanise all other hon. Members to say to the Secretary of State that there is too much to lose by making a foolish mistake which, again, must be based on dogma rather than on bringing peace, stability and reconciliation to our Province.
We are to have direct rule for another year. Especially in terms of security, which is close to my heart, no one can be proud of that stewardship. On the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, I have pride in saying that I was born a British subject. Neither Charles Haughey nor anyone else will rob me or my family of our Britishness. I still believe that if Ulster is part of the United Kingdom, Charles Haughey, the leader of a foreign country, has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of that part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I fully understand the fervour with which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) spoke. He represents a constituency that has suffered terribly at the hands of terrorists. We should ensure that he knows that he and the people whom he represents have our sympathy and support.
I was saddened by the remarks about religious schools in the latter part of the speech by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). For the past 20 years, I have argued against religious apartheid in education. I argued not only for seeing an end to the taxpayer supporting religious schools, but for the abolition of the three teacher training colleges and for teachers to be educated under the aegis of a university.
One of the great curses of Northern Ireland is the religious divide which exists because children are educated separately. There is the state system, to which reference has been made, and there are the religious schools. I cannot see the possibility of any real reconciliation unless and until all children from the earliest age attend the same schools. At the moment, even in my constituency children are bussed past state schools to attend religious schools. That is wrong, and I recognise the Minister of State's efforts in trying to bring people together and to remove that divide in education.
I participate in this debate at a time when I have been saddened by events of the past few days. We in Northern Ireland have experienced grievous times. Last Monday morning another of my constituents, Brian Lawrence, a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, was callously murdered by the IRA. He gave his life for the people of Northern Ireland, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, who have been subjected to more than 22 years of evil terrorism at the hands of sadistic killers. My heartfelt sympathy and the sympathy of this House go out to his grieving wife and family.
Yesterday Brian Lawrence's funeral was deliberately disrupted by IRA bomb hoaxes intended to create havoc and further distress for the mourners. That is utterly contemptible, but of course the IRA will stoop to any depravity, as we have learnt over the years.
Yesterday evening—more than likely just when the Secretary of State was receiving his award for reconciliation and harmony in Northern Ireland—a member of the regular Army, who came over especially from England to make arrangements for his wedding to a Belfast girl, was murdered in cold blood by the IRA in front of his girl friend. Our deepest sympathy goes out to her and to his family. Over the past two decades the House has heard countless expressions of sympathy in the wake of never-ending misery and atrocities. But sympathy is not enough.
I was particularly angered by the statement from the Northern Ireland Office that the upsurge in violence and deaths was due to the present inter-party talks. That is blatant nonsense, as were the earlier statements that the IRA atrocities continued over the past decade because no talks were taking place between the political parties. That is an insult to those who have died at the hands of the IRA and to the intelligence of the Ulster people.
The plain fact is that the IRA kill because they relish killing innocent and usually defenceless people. The IRA has calculated that if it commits enough atrocities, it will


be able to rule by terror. The IRA believes that it can frighten the British Government into taking steps that will eventually lead to capitulation.
One need look no further than the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which has been referred to more than once today, to see an example of abject capitulation which—let there be no doubt about it—gave encouragement to the IRA. At the time, the explanation was that the agreement would lead to peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. We know that that has not been the case and we can point to all the funerals that have taken place since that agreement was signed.
Despite all that has happened in the past decade, the majority of the Ulster people hope that the inter-party talks will end in success. I have commended the Secretary of State in the past for his patient efforts and I do so again now, even though, as you have already heard, Madam Deputy Speaker, he has excluded me from the talks for reasons that I have not yet heard. As I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), that is surprising because I genuinely support the talks and have taken every opportunity to promote their success. The extraordinary thing is that 17 months ago, when the Secretary of State launched the talks, he did so in a speech that he made in my constituency at a lunch with the chamber of trade. Its members thought that he was coming along to talk about the problems of Bangor and were disappointed that he did not. I was invited to attend by the Northern Ireland Office. I did and heard for the first time from the Secretary of State's lips about his intention to hold the talks. That was both the first and last time that I ever heard directly from the Secretary of State about the talks. I do not know why, and I would love an explanation. I intend to be brief, but I will sit down now if the Secretary of State wishes to give an explanation as to why I have been excluded. I regard it as a form of discrimination. The Secretary of State declines to take the opportunity to give an explanation, but I should like to know why because I regard it as a strange way of encouraging the talks. The Alliance party and all its entourage has been invited to attend the talks when it does not even have a Member of Parliament here; I ought to have been allowed to make my input at the talks.
As I have said, however, I am committed to the success of those talks. That is why I repeat my earlier plea to the Secretary of State about the meeting of the joint ministerial conference which is to be held under the Anglo-Irish Agreement on 16 July. The Secretary of State knows that the agreement is regarded by the Ulster majority as a detestable betrayal of the Unionist people in Northern Ireland. If the meeting on 16 July is not postponed, that will be seen as evidence of the Dublin Government's intention to humiliate the Unionist people.
This is a time for statesmanship. We need evidence of good will from Dublin. Therefore, when the Secretary of State meets the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic in the next day or two, I trust that he will urge the Irish Prime Minister to extend the period of suspension of the Anglo-Irish conference until after the end of July. I ask that because it seems to me that Dublin has a say in these matters. The Secretary of State has said that there is urgent business to attend to, but what business is so urgent that it cannot wait for two weeks? I should like to know. If the meeting is to go ahead on 16 July, the Secretary of State should tell us the reasons why. I do not think that it is asking too much to ask for a two-week postponement

when so much is at stake. It would certainly demonstrate the commitment of the London and Dublin Governments to fairness and justice. Stage 1 of the talks could be completed by the end of the month. I urge the Secretary of State to stand firm on this matter. There should be no meeting on 16 July or until the conclusion of stage 1 of the talks.
I remember—I was Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly at the time—how Dublin forced the British Government to bring the Assembly to an abrupt and ignominious end. As I was leaving Stormont for the last time, I saw the building ringed with police and police vans to make sure that the Members of the Assembly, who had been democratically elected, were ejected. It was a sad day for democracy that the people who had contributed so much to making the Assembly a success should have been treated in such a disgraceful way. It was done because Dublin demanded that the Northern Ireland Assembly should not provide a platform for those who were opposed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Surely in a democracy we are entitled to talk about matters which affect us. The British Government should not have closed Stormont prematurely, as they did. It is a blot on the British Government.
I close my remarks by referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). I am sorry that he is not here. I should like to pay tribute to him. He has announced that he will not stand at the general election. He has served his constituency well for more than 20 years and he has certainly been conscientious and loyal to his constituents. I have addressesd his Conservative association. As the Secretary of State has not invited me to the talks, I wonder whether perhaps I should not have done that. Perhaps that was why I was not invited. I spoke to the Orpington Conservative association dinner in this House. My hon. Friend is regarded with great warmth in his constituency. I pay tribute especially to his dedication to the people of Northern Ireland. His commitment is recognised by the people of Ulster and we regret that he will no longer be in the House after the next general election.

Mr. David Trimble: This debate is on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1991. I refer to that to remind myself—not necessarily to remind others—of the precise subject of the debate. It is an extension for another year of the system known as direct rule. As the time is available, I understand the desire of my colleagues to range over other subjects. But I wonder whether it would be better—perhaps the Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office would like to bear this in mind—to have properly structured debates on various aspects of Northern Ireland business as and when appropriate, or to create the opportunity for such debates. To allow debates such as this to range over a series of issues does not allow us to have focused debates.
The issues over which my hon. Friends ranged are important—I intended no criticism of them in what I have just said. Security and other matters are of vital importance. I am well aware of that from the events in my constituency. However, I hope that my constituents will forgive me if I do not concentrate on those matters but turn to the particular issue of direct rule. I wish to focus attention on the direct rule system itself. It is important


that we should consider the nature of it and its effects as well as the position in which it might place the United Kingdom.
It is accepted that direct rule is an extraordinary system of government. It should not be regarded or accepted as normal, although it may have lasted for 19 years, with one short break of five months. I believe that I am right in saying that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland once said, in respect of direct rule, that there was a "democratic deficit" in the government of Northern Ireland, which is undoubtedly true. If we compare the system of government in Northern Ireland with that in the rest of the United Kingdom, it immediately becomes apparent that there is a complete absence of any form of effective local government in Northern Ireland.
Changes to the local government system in Great Britain are presently being mooted, but there is an effective system of local government, controlling a range of matters related to the environment, roads, housing, significant planning functions and even, in some areas, policing. None of those functions exists within local government in Northern Ireland. There are district councils, but they are equivalent to parish councils in rural England. A recognisable system of local government does not exist in Northern Ireland.
There is also a democratic deficit in central Government functions in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland matters are not treated properly in the House. We have the iniquitous system of legislation by Order in Council. Such orders are not treated properly in the House, and there is no opportunity to amend or discuss them in detail. In the past couple of weeks, we have been fortunate in that electricity privatisation has been discussed in the Northern Ireland Committee, but even that is less than satisfactory because, during those discussions, there is no opportunity for detailed consideration on a clause by clause basis such as we would have for proper legislation.
I refer hon. Members to a most eloquent denunciation of the procedures in the Northern Ireland Committee by a Labour Member in that Committee this morning. I think that it was an hon. Member representing a Derbyshire constituency, but I shall have to leave hon. Members to look at the Hansard report of that Committee to explore further that clear denunciation of the Committee's operation, which shows that we cannot make up the democratic deficit that results from an absence of a proper system of legislation.
Accountability is also non-existent. We do not have the same measures to provide for the accountability of Ministers to the House on Northern Ireland matters as on other issues. Once again, there is a clear democratic deficit.
The system of direct rule, the interim period extension, was referred to in the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 as "temporary provisions". However, the measure has lasted in one form or another for 19 years, and cannot be described as temporary or interim. It exists because it is the will of the Government and the House that such an unsatisfactory system should exist. It is their responsibility that it exists, because there are other things they could do.
I wish to consider whether, by having such an unsatisfactory system—which even the Government

acknowledge as unsatisfactory—the United Kingdom Government have placed themselves in breach of their international obligations. That idea came to my mind when I was perusing the United Nations' covenant on civil and political rights, article 25 of which states:
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;"

The article goes on to refer to elections and to access to public service.
The phrase
take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives,
is largely based on article 21 of the universal declaration of human rights, which states:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Article 25 states that that is without any of the distinctions that are mentioned in article 2, which sets out clearly what might be called the equality principle that is present in the United Nations covenant, as it is in almost all human rights and civil liberty provisions that are internationally recognised. The equality articles in the international covenant on civil and political rights state that each state party undertakes to respect and ensure to all individuals within its territory, and subject to its jurisdiction, the rights recognised in the present covenant without distinction of any kind,
such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
That obliges each state to ensure to all individuals within its territory basic equality.
Sometimes people talk of the United Kingdom as if it were a single nation. Sometimes it is spoken of as a multinational state consisting of the separate Welsh, Scottish and English nations and the people of Northern Ireland. Whatever term we use, and whether or not we focus on the phrase "national or other status" within article 2, there is no doubt that the covenant requires the United Kingdom to treat all its citizens within the United Kingdom on an equal basis. In the terms of article 25, that means the opportunity to take part
in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
There should be equality in the opportunities afforded to all the citizens of the United Kingdom to take part in public affairs, but it is demonstrably clear that that equality does not exist and has not existed during direct rule. There can be no doubt about that. It will be interesting to hear any observations that are made about this state of affairs later in the debate. The inequality was recognised by the Secretary of State when he used the term "democratic deficit", and there is such a deficit. The people of Northern Ireland suffer from a system which gives them less opportunity to participate in public affairs than the peoples of England, Scotland and Wales.
We in Northern Ireland are deprived of an effective system of local government. We who represent Northern Ireland constituencies are deprived in the House of an equal opportunity to participate in public affairs when it comes to considering legislation and holding Ministers accountable for their actions. There are first and


second-class citizens and there are first and second-class Members in this place. We are conscious of the restrictions that have existed for 19 years.
I am sure that the covenants and obligations to which I have referred are not to be read too closely and too precisely. If a judicial body were called upon to interpret and apply the principles that are set out in them, I am sure that it would allow what in continental jurisprudence is referred to as a margin of appreciation to the relevant Government. It would allow some attention to be paid to circumstances, and I am sure that it would allow a degree of variation. There is a degree of variation within Great Britain in the local government systems in Scotland and England.
The principle of equality does not require an absolute, precise and completely unvarying standard throughout the kingdom. Instead, it requires a broad approximation. If crises required changes to be made, I am sure that a court that was called upon to apply the principles that are set out in the covenants and obligations would allow time for adjustments to be made if adjustments were necessary.
When a system of inequality has operated for 19 years there must come an end to the excuses that can be made for operating it and to the reasons that can be advanced for not applying equality. Her Majesty's Government should consider carefully the United Nations universal declaration of human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights. They will know that there are other international obligations and agreements into which they have entered in which the same principle of equality is set out. I suggest that they should consider carefully whether they are in breach of their other obligations as well.
The United Nations covenant and declaration are not immediately and easily enforceable. They are not the same as the European convention on human rights, under which applications can be made to the European Court of Human Rights and the issue made justiciable.
There are procedures, but not terribly effective procedures, whereby breaches of the United Nations covenant can be taken up. They usually involve going to other countries to raise the issue. I am sure that it would be a matter of great shame for Her Majesty's Government if her loyal citizens in part of the United Kingdom who have been discriminated against were forced to go to other countries to try to get them to raise their case before international tribunals in order to achieve redress. We have endured the system too long, and we cannot be expected to endure it for ever.
The principle of equality does not just condemn direct rule. I use the word "condemn" advisedly. If hon. Members were to reflect on it, they would see that it also condemns the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which is also in breach of it because it establishes a different regime in some respects for Northern Ireland.
With regard to certain matters—not all the issues of government but certain matters—as we know, the Anglo-Irish process, especially the intergovernmental conference, which has been referred to by hon. Members tonight, is the most significant organ of government for decision taking. We know that decisions are taken within it. We do not know the precise details, because, as was pointed out to the Secretary of State tonight, that conference and the Anglo-Irish process is underhand,

secret and deceitful. It really should be a matter of shame for an hon. Member to have taken part in it. I hope that eventually they will come to their senses on that matter.
There are implications not just for the Anglo-Irish Agreement but for other organs as well. If we talk about opportunites to take part in the conduct of public affairs, we have to consider not just Government organs and legislatures but the other things which operate within them which are the vehicle for taking part in public affairs, and that must inevitably bring one to consider the position of political parties.
Those political parties that discriminate against certain persons in the United Kingdom, that discriminate against certain regions of the United Kingdom by denying people the opportunity to join them, should reconsider their approach. The representatives of the Labour party who do discriminate in that way should consider their position, because the equality principle should apply to them too.
It is not good enough to say that political parties are private organisations that can draw up whatever rules they like for the conduct of their affairs. One did not say that about trade unions. Because of the way they operate within the body politic, it was said that they should be regulated. If one discusses or touches on the matter of some form of state or public regulation of political parties, one is entering into a dangerous area
One could understand the reluctance of public bodies to move in that way, but when one political party clearly discriminates, as the Labour party does, against the people of Northern Ireland, that should be a matter of general public concern. We have the ridiculous situation that the only people in all the world who cannot join or publicly affiliate themselves to the British Labour party are the 1·5 million British citizens living in part of the United Kingdom. That ought to be a matter of shame to the Labour party. I wish that it was. I regret that many of its members are shameless in that respect.
There may be a defence for different treatment of some areas, but the only effective defence is where that different treatment is done with the consent of those who are treated differently. In that respect, one has to say that with regard to direct rule there is not that consent. It was possible for some time—I believe that an hon. Member touched on this earlier—to suggest that direct rule was everybody's second option and there was some opinion poll evidence for that. At the end of the 1970s and in the early 1980s, a number of opinion polls suggested that there was a growing acceptance of direct rule, but it is interesting to note that, since 1985, general surveys and public opinion polls show that there is now no significant popular support for direct rule. People realise that the iniquitous system of direct rule allowed the act of folly and misjudgment known as the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and that it must be changed and replaced by something else.
The conference on security and co-operation in Europe, from the time of the original Helsinki agreement to as recently as two years ago, was primarily concerned with European security—particularly in respect of the two main power blocs—and human rights. However, its purpose subsequently broadened and deepened—notably at the charter of Paris conference last November—to include also the protection of the democratic process.
The CSCE is seen as the means by which the newly-independent states of eastern Europe could have their democracy confirmed, and by which the growth of genuine democracy in central and eastern Europe could be


assured. Her Majesty's Government are playing a part in that process, and are no doubt helping to advise others —so it is ironic that such an appalling state of affairs should exist in their own backyard. Instead of preaching to others, the Government would be well advised to put their own house in order and to remedy the direct rule system.
Let no one argue that the remedy for direct rule is for the people of Northern Ireland to agree, under the present talks, to some strange system of government. That is an inadequate answer. The difficulties of 18 or 20 years ago may have led the then Government to remove local institutions of democracy and to abolish the Stormont Parliament, but they did not compel the British Government to adopt direct rule. If they had wanted to divert power to this House, they could have done so in a proper way, using correct procedures, and by introducing other measures. That could still be done.
The Government should not hide behind the present talks. The remedy for the democratic deficit lies here. The people who can remedy that democratic deficit are seated on the Government Benches. It is their responsibility—and if they fail, as they have in the past, let them not put the blame on anyone else.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I intend to speak more briefly than the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), and I do not want to identify all the areas of disagreement between those hon. Members who have already contributed. I recollect that I spoke first after the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I paid tribute to his remarks then, but cannot remember whether I alluded to the possibility of the hon. Gentleman being a future leader of his party. Given the rate at which Northern Ireland parties change their leaders, the hon. Gentleman may have to wait a long time.
People change things—institutions do not. Institutions change—people do not. There are obvious exceptions to those generalisations, and if Northern Ireland is to have a happier future, those who appear to be unchanging must find a way of accommodating their ambitions with the aspirations of others.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who spoke with commendable brevity. He referred charmingly to the way in which he has avoided the television cameras for some time. I sometimes wish that members of my own party would do the same, on different issues.
I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who put up with a fair amount of chiding. I understand the strength of feeling that exists, but it is important that people, while not totally hiding their feelings, should exercise the restraint that we saw more from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh than from some other hon. Members tonight. As I have mixed Yorkshire and Northern Ireland blood in me, I shall—if provoked—be not nearly so restrained as the hon. Gentleman.
It would help to deal with one of the associated factors that lead to direct rule if there were certainty about the future of Northern Ireland and acceptance of the process of government in Northern Ireland. Those two may

appear to clash. It is quite clear to me that both the disloyalist killers and the IRA—as fellow killing criminals —are trying to exploit the possibility of change. I have no problem about envisaging a change in government within Northern Ireland, or for that matter within the United Kingdom. I am willing to contemplate change in the government of the European Community and even an enlarged European Community. Forms of government ought to serve the peoples within their jurisdiction rather than the other way round.
The IRA is one part of a series of issues in Northern Ireland; indeed, it is more than a part—it is one of the problems. Northern Ireland is not a problem by itself, although the IRA may be, but there is a series of other issues involved.
The IRA is limited by three factors—its physical capacity to create mayhem and to commit crimes, its supporters' tolerance for what it does, and the likelihood of progress towards its intended or desired results. It is plain that the House will stand completely firm against violence and crime achieving what should only be obtainable, even in theory, by political involvement.
The United Kingdom is not the sort of country where people can claim that the failure of democracy needs to be filled by violent crime. Whatever the democratic deficit that may have been identified by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or by any other person, that is not true.
It is also worth recognising that the tolerance of the IRA's supporters' exists. During my brief period of service in support of my right hon. Friend, the IRA had on occasion to explain why it had done certain things. The only time that it makes public explanations is when it has done something that tries the patience, understanding or support of those relatively close to it.
Part of what this House ought to be doing is creating the sort of climate and understanding among the outer fringes of peple who are willing at least to accept that there may be some reason behind part of what the IRA does, so that that circle of people gets smaller.
To put it differently, if one person is planting a bomb there are problably four people who know who is doing it, and for each of them there are four more people who are willing to accept that the process is "worthwhile" in their terms, even if it ends up with the killing of people on their own side whom they are against and many others who have no connection with the issues at all. Therefore, 16 people may be called proper supporters, and for each of those there may be four others willing to say that those actions are part of the process.
If we can turn the white propaganda—I am not talking about anything false, but about the genuine—and if we can get at those 64 people and make growing numbers of them understand what the IRA and for that matter the disloyalist killers are doing is counterproductive and has no prospect of success, the 64 may turn to 32. Thus we and the local community can squeeze the people who are killing.
I do not want to diminish the importance of strong physical security measures or say that is a substitute for the actions of the Army and the police. I am not saying that it diminishes the necessary bravery of those taking part in legitimate politics. However, that hard security is not sufficient by itself.
When dealing with other parts of the world I have come to the conclusion that we often find weakness where our enemies think that they are most strong. Sometimes we


find the greatest strength in the areas where people appear to be weakest. Nothing is apparently weaker than someone going to a polling booth, placing a cross on a ballot paper and shoving it in a box and then having their vote counted. Yet in a growing number of countries that system has managed to out-manoeuvre and outlast and may achieve more than those people who turn to the use of bombs and bullets.
We must have faith in an open political process. One of the tragedies of much of the period of direct rule is that no Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland has been a Minister in the United Kingdom Government and there appears to be no prospect of that happening. Each political party in Northern Ireland should be trying to change that. The solution may come from what has been described as the fledgling of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland; it could perhaps come from the SDLP in the event of a Labour Government, because of the close association between the SDLP and the Labour party in Great Britain. Again, it might result from the Unionists returning to the kind of arrangement with a political party that they had until about 18 years ago.

Mr. William Ross: It could easily come about if the Conservative party became a Unionist party again.

Mr. Bottomley: That is one answer; there are various others. The solution might be found if the current talks —an achievement on which all the legitimate parties should be congratulated—led to what the hon. Member for Upper Bann has described as "consent to different arrangements". The present arrangements are not satisfactory; no one pretends that they are. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said as much in his speech at the Methodist college in December 1989.
The United Kingdom is more likely to provide the equal opportunities described by the hon. Member for Upper Bann if we can secure basic consent to a process whereby people can reach agreement themselves in Northern Ireland—or the north of Ireland; I use the terms interchangeably. The talks will not succeed unless the legitimate parties reach agreement, and such an agreement is at least as likely to result from what is said outside the Chamber as it is to be informed by our debates.

Mr. Trimble: I understand what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, and I know that he intends to be helpful, but he is putting the cart before the horse. The principle of equality that I mentioned ought to be applied irrespective of whether we approve of the way in which local politicians are behaving. If it were applied, it might in itself be conducive to the developments that the hon. Gentleman has described.

Mr. Bottomley: I am sure that that is true. I have never been accused of having any difficulty in overcoming intellectual pretensions. I have none—I am not rigorous, or a successful lawyer like the hon. Gentleman. I am simply trying to give my views on some of the issues about which I felt strongly before I became a Northern Ireland Minister, and about which I have continued to feel strongly since I stopped being one. I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has to say and I hope that he will now allow me—briefly—to say what I want to say.
There has been some argument about whether the date of the intergovernmental conference should be changed. Some of the exchanges have not been very helpful. My

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have been allowed to continue after he had repeated what was known —that a date had been announced. He also said that he intended to discuss the matter with others because of the delay in embarking on the first strand of the talks. I suspect that he was alluding to the possibility of an alteration in the date.
One party that is not represented here—apart from the Alliance party—is the party which governs the Republic. I think that the Irish Government would have found some of the demands for a change in the date pretty offensive. I ask them to react in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and not to respond to all that has been said here.
I hope that the inter-party talks will lead to some way of accommodating the different interests. I do not believe that an extra two weeks, bridging 12 July, will make that much difference; I am not sure that people in Northern Ireland want to be involved in detailed, serious talks, with an unpublicised content, throughout July. I do not think that that is in the Northern Ireland tradition. It is not likely to be the best time to be continuing the talks. There are other problems, too, that are best aired without the benefit of the microphones in this Chamber.
I enter a plea for the Government in the south to understand the implications of what had been the 10 weeks leading up to the middle of July. There has been a change in the circumstances that people were expecting before the hiccups in starting the talks process.
The tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was well made and I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) for his remarks. There has been a good tradition in the Conservative party of having people with a keen interest in the constitution, and the well-being of the people, of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. We have had Airey Neave and Ian Gow and the present Secretary of State, and I hope that the tradition will continue—whether there are vacancies by way of bombs or retirement, I trust that four more will step forward on each occasion, for that must be the way to proceed.
The tribute to the Secretary of State is well deserved and I am glad that there has been all-party support for early-day motion 975, which recognises the efforts of the Secretary of State, with his good humour and self-restraint, together with his persistence in trying to get people to find ways of pushing forward their own views of the right interest for Northern Ireland in a way that is compatible with sitting down at the same table with people who approach the issues in a different way.
The all-party talks represent a major opportunity for progress and reconciliation. Perhaps they are not likely to succeed in all possible ambitions straight away, but the fact that they started is a reflection of the detailed preparatory work that took place. That is a tribute to all those taking party, including—I say this in the open—the Opposition in this House and the constructive assistance that they have given along the way. If all those participating in the talks do their utmost to deliver a successful outcome, it will, as the early-day motion says,
be universally recognised as a quite outstanding achievement.
I sum up a whole series of issues by saying that I do not have, and never have had, a solution. About 300 years should have been sufficient to find the easy solutions. There remain a series of issues with which we must deal. If


we are to get justice, it must be the type of justice that cannot be delivered out of an illegal gun or bomb. Such methods cannot deliver justice in any part of these islands.
If we are to have equality, it must come because people have a true choice of employment, and issues that arise over people being unable to swap between one council area and another must become issues of the past. Once each person has a job, we can argue over what sort of jobs people have rather than having to ask whether they have jobs at all.
Justice goes with peace, and justice and peace go with jobs and prosperity. The politicians will not have succeeded until we have managed to outfight, in terms of security, and outwork the people of violence and ill will, those who want to be stuck in the politics of the past, pandering mainly to the prejudices of their most extreme supporters. Northern Ireland deserves better than that, and we may be part of the way towards seeing a glimpse of a better future.

Mr. Peter Robinson: This has not been a good day for me. I had intended, when looking at my diary in the early part of the week, to use today to listen to others making contributions. But, including in Committee upstairs and the two debates in the Chamber, this is the third speech that I have made today. That has occurred because of circumstances outside the House and comments made inside it.
No matter from which part of the United Kingdom we come, and no matter to which party we give our allegiance, each of us enters the doors of the Chamber having gained access through the ballot box. We all have something else in common—when we go before the people, we put to them a programme of what we intend to do when we are elected. In 1987, when I last stood for election to the House, I stood on a manifesto which, in common with my colleagues in the Ulster Democratic Unionist party, we fought with the Ulster Unionist party. That manifesto committed us to take a certain course of action on the Anglo-Irish Agreement and, therefore, the impact that it had on direct rule—the subject of our debate.
Because of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, in effect the Unionists had been marginalised in political life in Northern Ireland. An outside Government had been given a greater say in our internal affairs than we had. Because of that agreement, we pledged ourselves to work with anyone in the House who was prepared to find an alternative to and replacement for that agreement and to find new structures for Northern Ireland which could bring about the peace, stability and reconciliation about which the then Prime Minister had spoken in terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement but which could not have been and have not been achieved through it.
In some ways, I suppose that I could be described as a child of the troubles. Having grown up during those years, I was earnest in my efforts to work towards that alternative and replacement. I have three young children, the eldest of whom is approaching 19. None of them has lived a day in Northern Ireland when Ulster has not been at war. By the time I reached my eldest son's age, I had at least enjoyed knowing Ulster when it was free. None of my children has had that joy. I have a responsibility to them, which I will

not shirk, in working towards the structures that will bring about a stable and better future for our Province and its people. It was with that sincerity and genuine desire to see progress that I was happy to encourage the Secretary of State, to congratulate him on having brought the process about and to urge him on. Undoubtedly, there will be many difficulties. There have been many difficulties, but all of us hope that the process will succeed.
Although we face what is clearly another obstacle, it is perhaps beneficial if for a moment we take our eye off it and look over our shoulder to see how many obstacles we have already overcome. Many would have felt that it was unlikely that we would reach this stage, given the difficulties and obstacles in front of us. Perhaps, even at this late stage, we are not without hope and perhaps even this obstacle can be overcome. My colleagues and I will be at Stormont on Monday, willing to work to overcome that obstacle.
Part of the reason that we gave in our manifesto for seeking an alternative to and replacement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was the fact that that agreement had effectively put us outside the political arrangements. It had put in place structures with which we did not identify. We made no secret of the fact that we had a precondition, which might be described as a tripartite precondition, for entering into talks. Other parties were less open about their preconditions. We spoke plainly in our election manifesto about ours.
We required a suspension of the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which has two parts—conference level and secretariat level. The reason for that was perhaps best described by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—he is often the best person to describe such things—who said that, if we simply sat down and talked within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we should be negotiating within a cage. That is why we sought the suspension of the working of the agreement through the suspension of its conference and the secretariat.
Effectively, we had established that there would be book-ends at the beginning and at the end of the talks, in the form of conference meetings. The end of a conference meeting would herald the beginning of the talks and as soon as a conference meeting took place thereafter, that would be the end of the talks. That was pressed home not only to this Secretary of State but to previous Secretaries of State. We told them exactly what we meant by a suspension of the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. No one could have been in any doubt about it.
It was important for us that there should be a break in the conference meetings specifically for the purpose of the talks. In his speech, the Secretary of State referred to a statement of 26 March, implying—I put it no more strongly than that—that he had specified in that statement the dates within which the talks would take place in Northern Ireland. The text of the statement did not, in fact, give dates; it simply said that there would be a specified period within which the talks would take place and that it would be between conference meetings.
The dates of the conference meetings were set by the two Governments. We never agreed to those dates; indeed, we had no power to suggest what those dates might be. Nevertheless, the scene was clearly set: in the discussions between the two Unionist party leaders and the Secretary


of State, it was clearly specified that there would be a period of about 10 weeks in which we could talk about the three strands that made up the overall talks process.
Unfortunately, when the bilateral sessions that were to lead on to the first strand began, we were informed of matters that had to be resolved before strand one plenary sessions could begin. Those matters related not to strand one, but to a later stage of the process. I am sure that the Secretary of State will confirm that, in recent weeks, our advice to him has been that we should have proceeded with strand one and dealt with these matters in the margin of the conference. They were matters that took us quite by surprise. They also took the press by surprise. I recall a press conference given by the Secretary of State in which the right hon. Gentleman attempted to suggest that there was a need for an independent chairman for strand two. The press immediately said, "But we thought you, Secretary of State, were the independent chairman." That is what we thought, too.
There was a delay in the start of the talks process not because we sought or wanted a delay—on the contrary, we wanted to get on with the strand one negotiations. We therefore assumed that the time lost would be added on and that we would still be able to work within the same time period. As I said in an intervention, we have shown our willingness to intensify the process—to put more hours into the day and more days into the week—and we are still willing to do that, as an indicator of our good faith in the process. I rather suspect, however—and perhaps it is better to say it out than to allow others to think it and not say it—that the SDLP and the Government of the Irish Republic fear that the moving of a conference date is in some way an achievement for the Unionists and that there is some bonus to the Unionists in having a conference meeting moved just for the sake of it.
For the record, I make it clear that our only objective is to complete the talks process within the conference meetings and if we could do that in the two or three remaining weeks, we should be delighted. However, practically, I do not believe that it can be done in such a short time. It could just have been done if we added on the time that we would have had if we had the full 10 weeks in which to work.
The Secretary of State will know that some of us believed that the best argument which could have been advanced for the moving of the conference dates would have been that progress had been made. I should have been most happy if there had been no reference, either today or earlier, to the date of conference meetings and to the fact that there was a time limitation. I am convinced that if progress is made in the next few weeks, only a very foolish Government—whether of the United Kingdom or of the Irish Republic—would consider prejudicing the progress that had been made for the sake of what is, to all intents and purposes, an artificial deadline.
During the past seven weeks, the two Government representatives have met each other more than in any other period since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. They cannot be missing each other because during the past seven weeks they have had every opportunity to be in regular contact. The Unionists recognised before the process began that there could be just cause for the Secretary of State to meet the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Irish Republic. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North even said that it

could be about security issues. Therefore, the Unionists did not believe that there could be no contact between the two Governments. They recognised that it was possible that the two Governments would need to be in contact, but the key issue was that if such contact occurred, it should not be under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
If the Secretary of State believes that there is a pressing issue which burdens him so much that he is prepared to jeopardise the talks process, surely it can be dealt with outside the Anglo-Irish Agreement with the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Irish Republic. The two Unionist leaders have already shown that they are prepared—and I use an Ulster expression—to thole such a meeting in those circumstances, but it should not be held under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I do not believe that a meeting on 16 July is an essential element of political life. The two Governments could do without it. During a week, or even two, three or four weeks, away nothing would have changed so much that the Governments could not then discuss whatever is burdening them so much at the moment.
The Secretary of State and the Minister of State must take on board the concern of the Unionists' representatives. When the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are in contact with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic—as I understand that they will be within the next day or so—we urge them to establish whether he was genuine when he said publicly in Dail Eireann that he was prepared to be flexible on the timing of the meeting. His flexibility was recorded in the report of Dail Eireann. We are waiting to see whether that was a genuine statement. The Prime Minister and Secretary of State can also discover whether he was being honest when he said on Radio Telefis Eireann—that is the only Gaelic that he will get out of me this evening—
The Unionists will be surprised at how generous we are going to be.
There is an opportunity for Mr. Haughey to demonstrate his generosity and we will certainly urge and encourage the two Governments to give the full time necessary for the process to continue.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke of his desire to see the negotiations succeed. I honestly do not believe that any of the Northern Ireland political parties would have gone through the many difficulties if they did not want the process to succeed. It is incumbent on the Secretary of State to make sufficient space to ensure that they have the opportunity to work towards that success.
The issue of security burdens me significantly today. Yesterday evening in my constituency, a young soldier who was a member of the Parachute Regiment, having taken leave to do so, was visiting his fiancée in Nevis avenue off the Holywood road in east Belfast. I am sure that many people in Northern Ireland will be concerned that someone who had been in the Province for a short time should have become the object of attention by the terrorists in the Provisional IRA. It shows a worrying aspect of the intelligence of the terrorist organisations that someone who is in the Province for such a short time can come to their attention.
I know that everyone in the House condemns the action of the gunmen who carried out that attack and who forced their way into the house, held the fiancée at gun point and fired four or five shots into the back of that young man's head in front of his fiancée. There have been many wicked


murders in Northern Ireland over the past decades, but few have been carried out in such an evil manner as was that one. I know that the House will support me when I offer my condolences to all in the family circle and especially to the young girl who witnessed such a horrifying act against someone she loved.
Similar incidents to the one that occurred in my constituency last night have occurred in the constituencies of hon. Members in every part of Northern Ireland over the past years. Death and destruction are no new features to the people of Northern Ireland. It is a sad reality which was perhaps underlined in the figures that were given yesterday in Hansard by the Minister of State. Behind each cold statistic is a human story of suffering and anguish.
It is very easy for hon. Members in other parts of the United Kingdom to look at the scenes on television and to recognise and, I know, sympathise with the events in Northern Ireland which are brought home to many of them because some of those who have died have been soldiers from their constituencies who were serving in Northern Ireland. But in Northern Ireland at the moment there is considerable concern because there is a recognisable increase in IRA operations. When the IRA increases its operations, the Government must ensure that the security forces increase their operations as well.
While I have said that I support and will do everything in my power to ensure the success of the talks process, that process will not provide the solution to the death and destruction in Northern Ireland. The people who shot that young soldier in my constituency will not be won over because we agree on political structures or new relationships. They will not be impressed if they see four Northern Ireland political leaders signing a document. They will not throw their guns away if they see that a new relationship has been worked out between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. They will not melt away if we all sign a new British-Irish agreement. They will still be there and they will have to be dealt with. As likely as not, they will increase their violence because there is to be political stability.
That does not mean that stable political structures cannot make a long-term contribution. They can, if those structures contain the means to deal with law and order. With the greatest of respect to those who are responsible for law and order at the moment, local Ulster people who know the situation best and have a vested interest in obtaining peace for their Province will be the best people to deal with law and order issues affecting Northern Ireland.
I urge the Secretary of State to employ a strong and resolute military initiative against terrorism. By all means he should devote his energies to a successful talks process, but he should not do that at the expense of pressing the terrorist. He should not do that at the expense of holding back the security forces in the battle against terrorism. That means that we must hunt and harry the IRA. We must corner and catch the terrorists. When we catch them, we must ensure that the terrorists are given appropriate sentences that fit the crimes that have been committed.
In conclusion, I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State one of the outstanding matters of direct rule that it is within his power to resolve. I am referring to an injustice which must be corrected. As the Secretary of State said last week, he has before him a report from the Chief Constable of the RUC which arises from an investigation into the procedures adopted leading up to the prosecution of four men who, in 1983, were found guilty in the courts of the murder of Adrian Carroll.
Since those men were arrested in Armagh and brought into the Castlereagh station, they have protested their innocence. They were serving in the UDR—a branch of our security forces—on the night in question. We have presented evidence to the Secretary of State which shows that they could not have been at the scene of the murder. The Secretary of State has a responsibility—one that I know he will not dodge—to ensure that that matter is put before the Court of Appeal so that those men can have the right to put their case for a retrial. Given the evidence that is now before him, the right hon. Gentleman should take that step. In considering what he should do and when, I remind him that those men have been in prison for more than seven years for a crime that they did not commit. Surely, therefore, he should act urgently and immediately.

Northern Ireland (Interim Period)

Rev. Ian Paisley: As you have now taken the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order with you before making my speech. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who has now been absent from his place for some time, has accused my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. 'William McCrea) of being elected to this House
by the grace and favour of the IRA".
Having brought that fact to your attention, Mr. Speaker, I trust that you will read what the hon. Gentleman actually said in Hansard tomorrow and that you will rule whether it is in order for one hon. Member to say to another, that "You are here by the grace and favour of Republican murderous thugs." I do not know whether you want to say anything about that matter, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that what was said, and was interpreted as such by most hon. Members who were present, was that the same conditions prevailed in the constituency in question as in my constituency—in that I was elected because enough people voted for the third party to allow me to beat the second party. I do not think that anything more was said or suggested—

Rev. Ian Paisley: There was no mention of that.

Mr. Speaker: I was not in the Chamber to hear those remarks, but I shall study them in Hansard tomorrow. As the House knows, in the Chamber we treat each other as men and women of honour. I am certain that the hon. Member who is alleged to have made that remark did not mean it in the sense that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has suggested.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that you will find, Mr. Speaker, that what has been said by the hon. Gentleman's apologist, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), is not so. You will know that that is the case when you read Hansard. I would resent it if anybody said to me that I had been elected to this House by the grace and favour of murderers. I know that if that was said of any English, Welsh and Scottish Member, he or she would react in the same way.

Mr. Speaker: Was this issue raised at the time?

Mr. Ian Paisley: Yes, immediately.

Mr. Speaker: I am certain that if it was, the Deputy Speaker in the Chair would have dealt with it then.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Madam Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair, did not accept what I said—that is why I am asking you to read Hansard, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I am not entitled to go upstairs and to bring that Hansard report down to the Chamber, so I am asking you to read Hansard and to give us your view. I advise those who want to apologise for such behaviour in the House that I have been a Member of the House for 21 years, and. I know some of its ways. I also know a lot about Ulster politics and that accusations are made, but we highly resent such accusations.
To begin my speech, I now understand why we are in a mess in Northern Ireland. Tonight, the hon. Member for Eltham has demonstrated in the House the sort of thinking

that has brought us to this mess in Northern Ireland. I should love to take the hon. Gentleman to a graveyard in Castlederg which contains row upon row of graves of Ulster Defence Regiment men. Then I should like to take him to the widows and orphans so that he can explain to them the abominable policy that he has outlined to the House as a way of ridding ourselves of the Irish Republican scum who are killing our people. That philosophy is completely isolated from reality and from the sorrows and agony of Northern Ireland that has brought us down into the mess that we are in. When the hon. Gentleman was in Northern Ireland, he lectured us about our bigotry. On radio, he lectured us about the bigotry of the people of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Eltham expounded his philosophy of how we are to rid our Province of what is happening there and of men who are not content to kill their victims but will not even allow them to be buried. I was in that church because I represent the whole of Northern Ireland in another place. While the victim was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), he was also my constituent in my European parliamentary constituency. I know the family and I know where the victim lived. He lived adjacent to the place where I preach.
The funeral had to be held up because the IRA said that it had laid a bomb on the very route that the funeral would take to the graveyard and another bomb in the graveyard. The terrorists gave the proper IRA code to the police, so we know that it was not a prank. When we have to face such behaviour, we know that it will never be got rid of by some sort of philosophy in this House. It is impossible to wean those these people away from violence. People maintain that there are so many in a small group and that one by one they can be weaned away. These people cannot be weaned away from their evil
I have read deeply in Irish history. I have read everything that I could lay my hands on about what happened in the Irish Republic. It had similar circumstances to what we have in Northern Ireland today when the irregulars were killing, maiming and destroying in the south of Ireland. Kevin O'Higgins, a Republican whose understanding of Ireland would be entirely different from mine, said that there was only one way to put the violence down. It was by weapons that the people themselves used.
Of course, Kevin O'Higgins lost his life because he carried out the only policy that led to success. But he brought about peace in the southern part of our island. It will take resolution, strength, courage and determination to put down the violent men that are abroad in our Province, not an empty philosophy.
I have studied the figures carefully. If one studies the last council by-election, it is clear that there is a rising tide of political support for Sinn Fein. I know what I am talking about in my area and in other areas. I do not speak as an individual: I speak from an advantage point that no one else in the House can speak from. In numbers, I have had more votes cast for me than any politician living or dead in the United Kingdom. I do not speak for half a dozen people. I am not talking about getting in on split votes. I am talking about massive majorities in my European campaign. I am talking for people. I want to tell the House tonight that it needs to listen to the people.
I shall not take much time to speak about the talks. The Secretary of State knows my mind. I have already seen


him. I have talked to him personally with my colleague, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). The Secretary of State knows our minds on what is happening, and I shall not repeat anything in the House. Tonight we can see just who is sincere about the talks. In the statement that was made on 26 March, there was no mention of dates; 16 July was not sacrosanct. It was not even in Hansard. Hon. Members can read it for themselves.
All I am saying is that we understood that there were two conditions. The first one was that the Secretary of State would tell us when strand two would commence after he had consulted the rest of the parties on that matter. We then discovered, through a newspaper report, that the independent chairman for strand two was to come to our Province in the first week of July for the first meeting of strand two, then go away and not return until September. The Secretary of State was to consult the other parties when strand two began, but the independent chairman was to come in the first week of July for the start of that process. I wonder why the other delegates were not told that.
Secondly, we were to have 10 to 11 weeks to complete the process. The Secretary of State can stand up now and tell the House whether my colleague, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and I thought that we had enough time.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member has referred to the fact that he explained to me in private his views on this matter. Since he has chosen to allude to the matter, he will also recall that he raised with me the subject of that newspaper report, and I gave him what I think was a rational explanation of how that report arose. I think that it would be unfortunate if the House were to rise tonight thinking that something conspiratorial had occurred in that context. It was necessary to give Sir Ninian Stephen some idea of when, conceivably, he might be needed to do his job.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Australian newspapers have quite a number of reports about what is happening and I shall not enter into a long debate tonight, although I could. I could marshal my facts—I know the person who spoke on behalf of the Secretary of State to Sir Ninian, and I could outline the position. But tonight we are asking, "What is the use?"
My honourable colleague, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, and I started talking to the Government immediately after this Parliament was elected. We have continued to do so for a long time, and no one can doubt our dedication to the matter. Even the Secretary of State has referred to that fact over and over again.
The Secretary of State had better realise that the people of Northern Ireland cannot be fooled or deceived; the wool cannot be pulled over their eyes. They believe that if there are 10 weeks in which to do a job that seems impossible to complete in that time, extra weeks must be given to do that job. If circumstances arise that cut into those 10 weeks, the ways and means must be found to make available the lost weeks.
We have been prepared to work every day of the week except the Sabbath if that is what is required. We have made that clear from the very beginning. We are not trying

to hold up the process. The same red herring is drawn in every time, that the Unionists will not meet the Dublin authorities, but we will do so. We look forward to confronting them with their claim over our territory.
I find it very offensive that the hon. Member for Eltham should say that the remarks made in the House tonight by the Unionist Members were offensive to the Dublin Government. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down said that the process was putting the nose of the Ulster people into the dust. He was right; it is offensive to pull the plug on them in the middle of these important meetings, because the 10-week obligation cannot be met.
I make no apology for saying again that Northern Ireland is not an annexed colony of the Irish Republic. It is part and parcel of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman had better remember that it is not one-way-street loyalty and that the Ulster people have never sought to make it that. They have stood by the United Kingdom in days of peril.
The hon. Member for Eltham was in Northern Ireland, and he should return to look again at the various cenotaphs to learn how many Ulstermen gave their lives for his liberty as well as for those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Some of us will be on the Somme soon to mark the 75th anniversary of the occasion when an entire generation of Ulstermen was wiped out. I resent anyone telling me that I am offensive when I stand for Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom and not as an annexed colony of the Irish Republic.
There are three propositions that I am asked as a Unionist to accept, and they are repugnant to me. First, I have to accept the inalienable right of the Dublin Government to be involved in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. That I will never accept, and nor will the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. Let the House be crystal clear about that. When talking to an hon. Member earlier today, he said, "I am amazed that such a thing should even be suggested." That, however, is the ultimatum that is put to me by nationalists.
Secondly, I am asked to accept that the aspiration of nationalists has never, from the time of partition to this day, been allowed to be expressed. Not even when nationalists were in the power-sharing Executive was the aspiration of true nationalism expressed, because they did not have the Council of Ireland. I am being asked as a Unionist and a member of the United Kingdom to accept that nationalists were never able to express themselves.
Thirdly, I am asked to accept that the police of Northern Ireland are now as great a part of the problem as the IRA. That I totally and utterly repudiate.
These are the propositions that are being pushed upon the Unionist people. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh—I am sorry that he is not in his place—gave us a list of figures when he talked about discrimination. He need not read homilies on discrimination. The SDLP has controlled four area councils for a long time—Londonderry, Newry and Mourne, Down and Strabane. I have some figures as well—they are Fair Employment Agency figures, not mine. I have little time for the FEA, but its figures have "infallibility" when it comes to discrimination, and they provide the standard which others have to meet.
The figures show that 65 per cent. of the population who are represented in Londonderry council are Roman Catholic and that 75 per cent. of jobs go to Roman Catholics. It appears that 75 per cent. of the population


who come within the area for which the Newry and Mourne council is responsible are Roman Catholics, and that 88 per cent. of the jobs go to those people. It appears also that 55 per cent. of the population for which Down council is responsible are Roman Catholic and that 60 per cent. of the jobs go to those people. That is an area which is represented in part by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). Lastly, 52 per cent. of the population for which Strabane council is responsible are Roman Catholic, and 60 per cent. of the jobs go to Roman Catholics. There we have discrimination over 18 years.
I listened to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh talking about the civil service. I do not know anything about civil service figures, but according to the FEA, the largest grade in the Northern Ireland civil service has 12,000 members out of the 21,000 civil servants in Northern Ireland, and 52 per cent. of all recruits in the past five years have been Roman Catholics in that section, although only 40 per cent. of the population are Roman Catholics. Yet the hon. Gentleman says that we are always discriminating.
We have a controversy about schools. I do not think that the Secretary of State has been fair to the House. He has referred to Protestant schools. There is no large Protestant school movement in Northern Ireland today. There are state schools; there are no Protestant schools. To those state schools go Roman Catholics, Protestant, Jews, coloured people; everybody goes. They are all entitled to go there. Those schools grew out of Protestant Church schools.
The Stormont Government, a Unionist Government, said to the Churches, "Give us your schools and we will make a state system." Very foolishly, in my view, they handed over their schools. They should not have done so; they should have asked the Government to give them money to run their schools. But the Protestant churches handed over their schools. The Roman Catholic Church was wiser. It said it would not, and it went on agitating for money. Now it gets 85 per cent. of the cost of maintaining its schools and 100 per cent. for its teachers' salaries and 100 per cent. for its teachers' pensions. So the Roman Catholic schools are treated better in Northern Ireland than in any country I know. I went to America recently and asked how much it gave to its Roman Catholic schools. They told me, not a dollar.
What alarms the Protestant people of Northern Ireland is that we have a body in Northern Ireland, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which I do not know much about—

Mr. Brooke: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not seeking to mislead the House, but the settlement which was conducted under the Education Act 1944 for voluntary schools in England and Wales, necessarily in large numbers of Church origin, established exactly that 85 per cent. capital funding and that 100 per cent. for current funding which I thought he might be describing as unique to Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know, but perhaps the Secretary of State could tell me whether a Christian brother who takes a vow of chastity, obedience and poverty in England is paid the full salary and the full pension.

Mr. Brooke: Yes.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept that. But the Unionist Government were liberal to the Roman Catholic schools and recently the Cardinal Archbishop acknowledged that. I do not know what the Minister with responsibility for education will say, but for 45 minutes we see on our screens a prominent Roman Catholic, the chairman, and a nun giving a press conference, telling the people about the way in which they have been discriminated against. Yet the person who drew up the report was on the radio saying that he had never said that it was discrimination, that he had never mentioned the word in the report.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Member agree that all those people who have faithfully served on education and library boards throughout the Province since 1974 would bitterly resent any suggestion of discrimination by those boards against maintained schools? We would like what appears to be a leaked report to be made public and to be subjected to the most intensive investigation, to establish how that shortfall arose—and whether the maintained schools within the Protestant sector also have been underfunded as a result of some erroneous calculation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We need to find out what is at the heart of that allegation. No member of my party is ever allowed to serve on any of the quangos and other bodies that are established in Northern Ireland. I could give the House a list of the people who do sit on them. They include failed political candidates—people who could not get elected and who forfeited their deposits, but who have been stuck on those boards because they will not say or do anything.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) who was the chairman of the board in my own locality, knows that representatives of the maintained schools are on all those boards and can influence voting in respect of the state schools—yet when it comes to their own, they say, "We're different. You can't interfere with us."
I have always believed that people—be they Roman Catholic or Protestant—should have a fair slice of the cake. I have always held that belief, and I practise it in my political life. I defy any right hon. or hon. Member to bring me a Roman Catholic from Northern Ireland who will say, "I went to Ian Paisley with a problem and he did not help." Ministers know that to be true, because they continually receive letters from me on problems affecting all sections of the community.
I am in this House to see fair play, and the Protestant sector of the Northern Ireland community is not getting fair play today. The Protestant community cannot take the beating that it is getting without breaking. This is a hard thing for me to say, but, one day, the Protestant population will break. I say, in God's name, do not drive them to breaking point. I may not be here to speak for them. My colleagues in this House may not be here to speak for them. The people with whom the Government then have to deal may not be reasonable people—the people with whom they would want to deal. But if the Protestant population are pushed, something will happen.
I go to funerals because I feel that it is my duty to try to succour families. I am a pastor—I have worked at being one for 45 years. I can sit at someone's home, and I can nurse the orphans and put my arm around the widows and comfort them. I have received scores and scores of letters thanking me. That is why I go. I do not go for publicity. I do not go to have my photograph taken. I detest


photographers at funerals. I wish that they would take their cameras off funerals and allow people to bury their dead in peace and dignity.
At the funerals that I have attended recently, there is an ugly silence. People do not speak. I have never seen such alarm, and people in such a state, as I did at a funeral the other day in the constituency of the hon. Member for Antrim, East. There is a solemn, sad shadow being cast, and people are asking, "Is there any hope for us?"
Everything must be done to ensure that nothing hinders the present political dialogue—nothing. If the Republican Government says this or that must be done, it must be told that it cannot be done, and that the people of Northern Ireland must be allowed the 10 weeks they want. In the name of the dead, of the widows, and of the blood that has been shed, give them 10 weeks. Do not drive the people of Northern Ireland to desperation.
I know what I am talking about, because I have had people in my home and have attended meetings around the country. Elected representatives of Northern Ireland are distracted. Without support, I can do nothing for Northern Ireland.
If I cannot deliver the goods, if I cannot deliver my people to an agreement, we will not have an agreement. The two Unionist leaders can deliver the Unionist people, in support of a fair righteous agreement, but it may be a long time before two Unionist leaders will be in a position to do that again, so, please, in God's name, for the sake of the Province, do not push us. Try to help us and let us hear no more rubbish about it being "an insult to Dublin" to say that they should not interfere. Let us look at Northern Ireland and say that they will try to help them. That is the last plea that I want to make.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Some hours ago I made clear my views at this Dispatch Box on the murder which took place yesterday in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and I presume to speak again for the House when I respond to his comments and say that he would be entirely right to convey the sympathy of the whole House to his constituent, who suffered so grievously yesterday.
We have already spent about six and a half hours considering Northern Ireland business. We spent some time dealing with important security measures and we have spent some hours discussing direct rule. In its variety of forms, it has been, as always, a wide-ranging debate. At times, it has been robust—as robust as I can recall, and I believe that this is my 12th direct rule debate. At other times the debate has been highly emotionally charged. In a sense those emotions, coupled with the range of substance, are a reflection of life in Northern Ireland. Therefore it is entirely appropriate that our debate should be in that form.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for the way in which he opened the debate the Oppostion side and for his kind words to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—words which were reflected by a number of other speakers. While I realise that I am no impartial observer, I thank hon. Members for their words, which I entirely endorse. It

would be appropriate to tell the hon. Gentleman that we recognise the sacrifice that he has made in terms of the television cameras and I hope that he will take some encouragement from the fact that it has been helpful.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was kind enough to mention the changing face of the urban and industrial landscape of Northern Ireland. I was pleased that he also pointed out that the strength of a society is drawn, at least in part, from its diversity, and that it is government's responsibility to try to advance that process.
The one exception to the generous comments about my right hon. Friend came from the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and I regret his personal attack on the Secretary of State. He opened up the debate from the Floor on the question of the intergovernmental conference scheduled for 16 July. That has been the subject of comment by most hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East did us a service when he reminded us that in the past seven weeks we have come face to face with a number of difficult circumstances —circumstances which, on the face of it, created the impression that they might take a lot of solution. However, we made our way through all of those.
Like my right hon. Friend, I have heard everything that has been said in today's debate. Let me remind hon. Members what my right hon. Friend said. He said that the Government believed that a basis for the resumption of the talks should be found, and he intended to initiate discussions with all the participants—including the Irish Government—to bring that about. In the light of all that has been said, and the power with which it has been said, I do not wish to add to my right hon. Friend's comments; they will have been heard, as will the other speeches.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made an important point: he said that everyone in Northern Ireland should have a sense of identification with the Province—to feel part of it, and to believe that they had a stake in the community there. If we cannot allow people to generate the circumstances in which they can feel that, they will behave irresponsibly, and that is not in anyone's interests.
I shall not enter into the inter-party discussion about discrimination. Hon. Members have proved this evening that they are very capable of making their own cases and defending their own corners. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, however, levelled two charges not against other political parties but against the Government. The first related to the pattern of employment in the Northern Ireland civil service. I think that my right hon. Friend dealt with that adequately, so I shall not repeat the arguments. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to what he described as a report by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
I have not even seen the report, let alone read it. I understand that it is not actually a SACHR report; SACHR invited two academics to produce a paper for it. As far as I know, SACHR has not adopted that paper as its report, still less published it as such.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Mawhinney: It is very late, and I think that everyone has spoken at some length.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that, according to the report—as I have not seen it, I cannot verify either the statistics that he gave or the assumptions on which they were based—there was a £32 million difference between the amount given to the controlled sector and that given to the maintained sector between 1981 and 1986. The historic patterns of funding for schools in Northern Ireland suggest that at least some of the schools in the maintained sector received less per capita than those in the controlled sector. I emphasise that that is a historic funding pattern; it has nothing to do with discrimination.
Before the end of the 1981–86 period, the Northern Ireland Education Department had already recognised the historic funding difference. As the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) will recall—I think that we had discussions with his local education and library board on the subject—the Government sought over a period of years to skew the distribution of funds in a way that took account of the historic funding inadequacy, and to put the position right. It is beyond peradventure that the introduction of formula funding under the education reform proposals will be the most effective way to ensure that there is no inbuilt disadvantage in the distribution of resources for school funding, because the funding will simply go with the children.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is absolutely right to point out that there is no de jure discrimination over education in Northern 1 reland. Everyone is entitled to go to a state school, just as everyone is entitled to go to a maintained or integrated school.
That final point reminds me to express again my appreciation to the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) for the consistent support that he has given to the importance of finding ways to get our young people to inter-relate and understand each other better during the growing up and education process.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) spoke at length and with passion, as we have become accustomed, and I profoundly agreed with him when he said that there was no acceptable level of violence in Northern Ireland. Despite the difficulties that he and his constituents in particular have experienced, I hope that he will accept that I speak for the Government when I say that we will not be satisfied with any level of violence, in his constituency or anywhere else in the Province.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members—including the hon. Members for Londonderry, East and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—said that, in their view, direct rule was not working. I answer in no sense defensively that if direct rule is to be replaced, it can be done only on the basis of agreement. It cannot be forced or imposed. It can be done only by agreement, in which requires people to be willing not only to listen but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, to make accommodation. That issue is at the heart of the current discussions.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann introduced a new concept, at least new to me, in his reference to the United Nations international covenant on civil and political rights. I am not familiar with that covenant, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will return to it. I am not sure that I accepted the premise of his argument because all citizens of Northern Ireland enjoy the right to elect representatives at local and parliamentary levels and themselves to stand for election.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to develop the idea that because the circumstances of direct rule were not ideal, it in some way called into question the more fundamental issue. Although 1 agree that the circumstances of direct rule are not ideal, I cannot go with him in terms of the broader and deeper concept that he was trying to develop.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to the report that my right hon. Friend received recently about the case which is known colloquially as the UDR Four or the Armagh Four case. My right hon. Friend has already said that he will deal with the report expeditiously. It involves a lot of material and the House would want that material to be carefully considered and not have my right hon. Friend rush to judgment in a way that might lead to some important factor being overlooked.
No matter how effective and efficient direct rule is perceived to be, it fails to address the central issue of providing locally elected political representatives with a proper say in the administration of the Province's affairs. As has already been pointed out by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, local government in Northern Ireland has very limited powers. Other matters that would otherwise be the responsibility of regional political institutions are under the direction and control of central Government, and that means that local politicians are denied the full range of responsibilities that would otherwise be available to them.
The prospect of stable government in Northern Ireland, founded on cross-community support, must in itself provide the best possible lead for others in the community, in terms of bringing about reconciliation between the different traditions—reconciliation which can only be good for all the people of Northern Ireland. It would also bring home in a way that cannot be achieved under the present arrangements the total redundancy of the terrorist and his activities in the Province and repugnance at the terrorist. I reiterate what other hon. Members said in the debate—no one associated with the political process in Northern Ireland would claim that a political accommodation between the political parties in the Province and between the people of the island of Ireland would, in itself, extinguish the problems of terrorism. But I believe that they might agree that a settlement would deal the terrorist a serious blow. Many people in Northern Ireland and beyond recognise this, and I am sure that it accounts for much of the support from all walks of life which has been given to the current political talks.
To sum up, the Government remain fully committed to the objective of finding a means of transferring substantial power and responsibility to local elected representatives in Northern Ireland, on a widely acceptable basis, within a framework of stable relationships among the people of Ireland and between the two Governments. With that end in mind, we will continue to pursue and develop the current initiative through to its furthest conclusion.
I again pay tribute to all those who are involved in the process. I have no doubt that all of them are serious and wish to make progress and that all of them are working purposefully to that end. Progress can only be good for the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, and therefore for the rest of the United Kingdom.
The talks have a long way to go and it is clearly essential that the current arrangements for the government of the Province are continued for a further period. The order


therefore remains essential. Like others, I hope that this is the last time it has to be moved. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved.

Charities

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Sir George Gardiner: I should like to use the Adjournment debate to raise an important aspect of the regulation of charities. Britain is a charitable nation. At least one in four adults regularly engages in some form of voluntary activity. In England and Wales, 171,000 charities are registered with the charity commissioners. The total turnover of charities is no less than £13 billion. Charities are thus big business.
The advantages of being a registered charity are considerable. Charities are exempt from income and corporation taxes, capital gains tax and capital transfer tax, and attract 80 per cent. relief on the uniform business rate. Moreover, charitable status inspires public confidence and stimulates donations.
Individuals contribute through their taxes too. The Government's annual contribution to charity stands at £2·5 billion, of which £500 million is granted indirectly through tax benefits.
To maintain public confidence in the charitable sector, certain safeguards are vital. They include the protection of charitable funds from fraud and the prevention of their use for non-charitable purposes, such as political campaigning. It is that latter abuse on which I shall dwell tonight.
The most flagrant case so far has been Oxfam. As providers and organisers of famine relief, the charity has received strong support from the public. Yet I wonder how many of those donating or collecting or giving up free time to serve in Oxfam shops over the years knew that Oxfam was pouring funds into projects funded by the—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is a requirement placed upon him to declare an interest arising from a visit that he made to Namibia, which was sponsored by the International Freedom Foundation, the organisation which provided him with the brief that he is using tonight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): If the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) has an interest to declare, I am sure that he will do so.

Sir George Gardiner: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My visit to Namibia, which was hosted by the International Freedom Foundation, is declared in the Register of Members' Interests. I repeat that, in case the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) missed that point.
As I was saying, I wonder how many of those donating or collecting or giving up free time to serve in Oxfam shops over the years knew that Oxfam was pouring funds into projects run by the Marxist Government of Nicaragua, including the building of a shower block for a prison, the provision of first aid kits for Sandinista paramilitaries and a training school for Sandinista party activists.
In 1989, Oxfam, with another controversial development charity—Christian Aid—was instrumental in setting up the Southern Africa Coalition, a non-charitable pressure group to campaign for sanctions against South Africa. Anyone who has experience of training and self-help schemes for blacks in the townships and squatter


camps, as I have, knows the contempt in which Oxfam is held there for the blockages that it has erected to black enterprise, although that is not the point that I am pursuing tonight.
There has also been deep Oxfam involvement in political campaigning regarding Cambodia, and only this month, The Daily Telegraph unearthed Oxfam donations to a left-wing movement in Bihar in India dedicated to the class struggle—in at least one documented case, by recourse to arms.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I was a trustee of Christian Aid in 1979. I seem to recall that we sorted out where the charity had gone wrong in its work in southern Africa, and that the remaining work was noncontroversial. I am not arguing that my hon. Friend did not make that point—I merely say that, for the sake of balance, it is worth putting that on record, and I have a vested interest in making the point.

Sir George Gardiner: My hon. Friend makes his own point. The fact remains, however, that that was a non-charitable campaign.

Mr. Bottomley: It was a mistake.

Sir George Gardiner: My hon. Friend admits that it was a mistake; on that, we are clearly agreed.
Complaints reached such a pitch that the Charity Commissioners set up an inquiry, which reported last month. It concluded that Oxfam's trustees had
exceeded the charity's objects and the law which restricts charities from undertaking political activities.
The report said that the trustees
do not appear to differentiate between stating a possible solution to a problem in a reasoned fashion and campaigning to have that solution adopted.
The commission concluded that Oxfam's unacceptable political activities must cease. Yet it took the view that Oxfam's trustees had acted in good faith and therefore decided to take no action to seek reimbursement of the misapplied funds or to refer the matter to the Attorney-General. This is the fourth occasion since 1981 on which Oxfam has been found guilty of conducting political campaigns and it appears undeterred by reprimands from the commission. Even after the latest inquiry, Oxfam remains defiant. Its chairman, Mary Cherry, responded to the commission report by saying:
We have come to see that our primary object of relieving poverty, distress and suffering cannot be achieved without advocacy on behalf of the people we are trying to help"—in other words, "We will go on as before.
Oxfam has undoubtedly been encouraged in that attitude by a very cosy relationship with the commission in the past. In July 1987, an internal briefing to the trustees of Oxfam by Bruce Coles, the charity's legal adviser, commented on how the private guidance from the then chief commissioner—Mr. Dennis Peach—departed considerably from the commission's public statments. It is significant that he added:
we are fortunate in having a liberal-minded Chief Charity Commissioner"—
in other words, one who would always give Oxfam the benefit of any doubt.
Notwithstanding the good work that Oxfam does in famine relief, that is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. A fraud is being committed if money donated for charitable purposes by the public—either directly or through taxation—is siphoned off to pay for political

campaigns. Oxfam has been found guilty of such fraud, yet it is in that area that the commission is proving incapable of taking the necessary steps.
The commission's ethos is undoubtedly to smooth over any problems or disputes with the charity in question, especially in matters of alleged political abuse of status. The commission appears to become pro-active only in cases of fraud and mismanagement of trusts and charities, but does not appear to regard the abuse of taxpayers' money for political campaigns as worthy of serious redress.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: What is the hon. Gentleman's view of three other institutes which have charitable status—the Adam Smith Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Social Affairs Unit? I remind him that the Adam Smith Institute promoted the abolition of the Greater London council and advocated student loans and water privatisation, to mention but a few of its campaigns. What does he think about the charitable status of those institutes?

Sir George Gardiner: I can hardly comment on them. I do not know whether any complaint has been made about them to the Charity Commissioners. If complaints have been made, I am sure that they will be investigated in the same way as those against Oxfam.
As I was saying, the commission's ethos is undoubtedly to smooth over any problems. The fact that once a formal inquiry is launched the commissioners will not make the results public unless the charity being investigated gives them explicit permission to do so is also an unacceptable state of affairs. That paradoxical situation results in the very people to whom the commission is ultimately answerable—the general public— having no access to the commission's most important workings and findings. That situation is clearly compounded by the average length of a formal inquiry, which is about two years.
In 1987 the Woodfield report was commissioned by the Home Office to examine the efficiency of the Charity Commission. However, the report focused almost exclusively on cases of fraud and financial mismanagement, paying little or no attention to the growing political abuse of taxpayers' money. The law covering the political activities of charities is explicit and unambiguous. The commission states:
Political activity—like the elephant—is difficult to describe but easy to recognise. In relation to charities politics does not only mean 'party politics' but political activity as defined by the High Courts in many cases over the years-that is: seeking to influence government policy (local or central, at home or abroad); or advocating changes in the law or the retention of the existing law.

Mr. Jim Lester: Surely that has been superseded by the White Paper "Charities: A Framework for the Future". Paragraph 2·43 states:
Ministers welcome the advice and the guidance which charities can offer to Members of Parliament, to central and local government, and to other public authorities on a wide range of social problems. Charities should feel free to take the initiative in offering advice and opinions and in proposing changes in the law and should not need to wait to be invited to do so. The Government firmly believe, however, that such activities must remain ancillary to a charity's primary purposes, which must be clearly charitable and nonpolitical.
Is my hon. Friend really suggesting that the massive work that Oxfam and Christian Aid do—I declare an interest as an unpaid board member of Christian Aid—is ancillary to


their political campaigning? The money is spent on all the charitable activities for which those organisations are renowned.

Sir George Gardiner: I reply simply that advice is one thing and campaigning is quite different. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in 1991 the High Court ruling which rejected the application for charitable status of the human rights organisation Amnesty International clearly asserted that any body campaigning for the changing of laws of either the domestic or a foreign Government cannot operate as a charity.
Despite such clear guidance, the commission's record and view towards infringements are unacceptable. Oxfam, the subject of the latest inquiry, is far from being the only development charity breaking the legal guidelines, but its activities are especially significant. Not only is it the United Kingdom's largest charity, with an income of £62 million, but it has been the object of a stream of complaints from the general public, resulting in four previous official commission inquiries, which at best can be described as whitewashes. The complaints involved Oxfam's support for the World Disarmament Campaign in 1981, and for the Nicaraguan Government in 1985, the pamphlet "The Arms Race Kills" in 1985 and its pro-Palestinian position in 1989. Indeed, in response to the 1985 "The Arms Race Kills" pamphlet, the commission concluded that
Oxfam may have strayed into an area of political controversy unrelated to their activities",
but went on to say that
We do not propose to take this matter any further".
The trustees of Oxfam clearly hold the commission's regulatory ambitions in contempt. Despite Oxfam receiving some £12·5 million per annum from the taxpayer and the evidence of abuse of status over the past 10 years, the commission seems satisfied with public smacks on the knuckles, accompanied by private reassurances of support and cover to the charity's legal advisers.
Clearly, the Charity Commissioners perform a necessary role in providing a supportive service for those running existing charities or contemplating new ones. That should also involve advice on where the bounds of charitable status lie, as clearly defined in law. However, it is equally clear that the commission cannot, and should not, be expected to continue to act as defence counsel, judge and jury in cases of political abuse of charitable status. To expect it to advise Oxfam on how to stay within the commission's interpretation of the law and simultaneously to uphold the public and taxpayers' interest is a contradiction which cannot be resolved within existing structures.
We do not expect the national health service or local government to police themselves. Instead, we have set up a range of ombudsmen who together offer the prospect of independent and just redress after investigating complaints. The ombudsman system has won almost universal praise. I submit that we need a charities ombudsman as well.
There are two separate, easily definable areas of administering and scrutinising charities: the day-to-day administration and assistance, which should be carried out by the charities' trustees with assistance from the Charity Commission, and the investigation of complaints. It is

neither practicable nor reasonable to expect the Charity Commission to carry out both functions—a task riddled with conflicts of interest.
That issue lies at the heart of charity and charities. Charities are predominantly funded—directly through donations and indirectly through taxation—by the general public. The fact that under the present system the decision whether complaints from ordinary citizens should be taken up lies in the hands of the same body which renders advice to charities makes a mockery of public accountability. In the rare event that a formal inquiry is launched, the Charity Commission has no responsibility to report its full findings either to the complainant or to the public as a whole. In the case of Oxfam, indications are that this conflict of interest has resolved itself in favour of the charity concerned and against the public interest. Only with the creation of an independent body, such as an ombudsman, directly responsible to the public and accountable to Parliament, can the uncertainty of the present system be resolved.
I recommend to the Government the suggestions for reform made recently by the International Freedom Foundation, to which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred, and with which I am quite happy to admit that I have some association, but in which I have no direct interest and from which I receive no direct payment. That group's complaints against Oxfam were vindicated by the commission's recent inquiry.
The suggestion is that responsibility for the investigation of complaints against English and Welsh charities should be removed from the Charity Commission. The remainder of its work should remain with it, and it would remain responsible to the Home Office and to Parliament for the fulfilment of those duties.
Secondly, it is suggested that we should create an ombudsman for charities with supporting staff and central Government funding, modelled on the successful example of existing ombudsmen. Complaints of political and other abuse of charitable status would be sent to the ombudsman who would be responsible to the public for examining and adjudicating on complaints within the existing clear definition of abuse.
The mainstream of public confidence in the charitable sector is essential if the unique contribution that it makes to society is to be enhanced, but that public confidence is now at risk. The small minority of charities that are ineptly run, fraudulent or wish to play politics with taxpayers' money bring disgrace to the whole community. New structures are needed to bring them back into line with the law.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) and of the Minister of State?

Sir George Gardiner: I have finished my speech. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): indicated assent.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In 1991 the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) was the leader of an investigative team for the International Freedom Foundation to Namibia. He was also a guest of the South African foreign affairs department in Cape Town. His speech was no more than the rantings of the ultra-right in British and American politics. His objective tonight is to do immeasurable damage to the activities of Oxfam, which helps millions of people in very difficult circumstances across the world.
The hon. Member for Reigate refused to comment about the Adam Smith Institute because he knows that it organised a conference on privatisation in London in June 1988. It is also a registered charity. He is also aware that he makes the position of the Institute of Economic Affairs extremely vulnerable, in so far as his activities and those of his friends in the IFF invite complaints to be made about that organisation, whose activities are patently political. He also invites complaints about the Social Affairs Unit, whose authors once argued that the root cause of apartheid was not racism, but socialism and trade unions. One of its authors argued that one man one vote was undemocratic in relation to South Africa. That organisation is a registered charity.
The hon. Member for Reigate is getting into a very difficult area in which many organisations may be vulnerable. He should use his words with great care in future.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): It is clear from the intervention by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) has raised a very important subject which is likely to be of considerable interest to hon. Members.
The system of charities that has grown up in this country is unique and much prized. It is quite easy for us to forget that many of the major services that we take for granted today in health, education and social welfare, were built on foundations laid down over generations first by the Church and later by concerned individuals who gave of their time and resources not because they were asked to do so, but voluntarily and for the good of their communities.
As we have heard, charities now engage in an immense range of activities from running the village hall to caring for the disadvantaged and protecting the environment. They operate at all levels, from the small local village through to the international arena. Some survive with virtually no resources, other than people's goodwill. Others are well endowed. Some are very small and some are, in effect, multi-million-pound international corporations.
My hon. Friend is right to say that charitable status carries with it many advantages. The tax reliefs provided by the Government are considerable, as is the contribution made by both central and local government towards funding particular charities or charitable projects. He is right, too, to say that, if public confidence in our charities is to be maintained, proper safeguards must exist to ensure that the money donated for charitable purposes is used for those purposes and is not misapplied—in any way or at any time.
Over the years, a complex legal framework has been built up to ensure that charitable endowments are preserved for the benefit of the community, that trustees apply the highest standards of stewardship and that abuse is prevented. The Charity Commissioners play a key role in this, for it is they who are charged with the task of supervising and monitoring charitable activities and with investigating abuses of charitable funds.
Since the last major piece of charities legislation in 1960, the charity world has changed dramatically. As we have heard, the number and variety of charities has grown enormously, as has the amount of money donated to them. The Government believe that the system for supervising charities needs updating in the light of those developments.
The Government's proposals for legislation were published in the 1989 White Paper "Charities: A Framework for the Future". The proposals are designed specifically to enhance the Charity Commissioners' investigative and remedial powers, so that they may identify abuse or potential abuse at an early stage, and deal with it effectively. We think that these powers, together with the new duties and responsibilities to be laid on charity trustees regarding the preparation and submission of their accounts and their accountability to the public, will result in a far stronger framework for oversight and control of the charitable sector in the future. Work is well advanced on preparing the Bill, and we hope that there will be an early opportunity to introduce the legislation.
My hon. Friend has raised the question of political activities and charities. There is, of course, a crucial difference here between what is permissible for charitable and non-charitable organisations. A non-charitable body can support any causes that it wishes, provided that: it keeps within the general law. A registered charity, however, cannot have political objects; it is constrained by law to the reasonable advocacy of causes which directly further its objectives. Although it can, perfectly properly, draw attention to the problems that it encounters which affect its work, it may not go on to seek improperly to influence Governments either at home or abroad.
I am aware of concern that a few charities are overstepping the line between acceptable comment and unacceptable political campaigning and my hon. Friend has mentioned one tonight. As he is no doubt aware, in the case of Oxfam, the commissioners took action. Indeed, as he pointed out, they investigated the charity's activities, and although they recognised the value and importance of the work of the charity, and its experience in the field, they nevertheless censured its trustees for exceeding the limitations on charities and political activities. The law allows the commissioners to publish reports of their inquiries where they propose to take action on them. The commissioners' report on Oxfam was published in May. We intend to legislate to enable the commissioners to publish their reports much more freely which I believe would meet my hon. Friend's argument on this issue.
We know of nothing to suggest that charities in general experience difficulties in complying with the restrictions on political activities, but I understand that the commissioners are revising the guidelines, which they issue so that they are clearer. We think, however, that the law as it stands strikes the right balance between allowing charities to undertake reasonable activities and restraining them from acting in overtly political ways.
There is bound to be room for dispute over the application of the general guidance to particular cases, but to alter the guidance by legislation might well have the disadvantage of laying down inflexible rules instead of allowing the law to develop in the light of particular cases which may present features which cannot now be foreseen.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mrs. Rumbold: No, I shall not give way, because I have only a little time and I want to finish my reply to my hon. Friend.
Where charity trustees overstep the mark, the commission, particularly with its new post-legislative powers, will be able to check them. We have, therefore, no plans to change the law in this respect.
My hon. Friend also suggested that the commissioners' activities in providing advice, guidance and a variety of legal services to charities are incompatible with their investigative role. The Government, however, see no conflict between the commission's different roles. The commissioners' function is to promote the most effective use of charitable resources. Advising charities on the best use of their resources does not prevent them from taking action; nor does it make them less likely to act to remedy malpractice where this is found.
My hon. Friend suggested that an ombudsman for charities could be created along the lines of other ombudsmen, to take over the commissioners' investigative role. The Government do not recommend this solution. The various ombudsmen, including those for the national health service and local government which my hon. Friend mentioned, exist in general terms to investigate and expose injustice or loss to individuals arising from maladministration, poor service or unfair treatment. Those who complain about charity activities rarely fall within that

category. Their complaints and concerns, nevertheless, merit consideration and have to be dealt with. But whether an ombudsman is the way forward is more doubtful.
For example, in deciding complaints, the ombudsman would have to assess whether the action by a charity was acceptable in relation to charity law generally and to the charity's trusts in particular. This is a judicial function quite unlike that exercised by other ombudsmen. They are, in general, precluded from dealing with any complaint that has been, is being, or can reasonably be taken to court; they exist to deal with cases where no judicial remedy is available. That is not the case in the charitable sector.
The Charity Commissioners exercise quasi-judicial functions; they are equipped to consider the broad range of complaints put before them and to take action where appropriate. Appeals can be brought in the High Court against their decisions on charitable status, on the appointment of trustees or their removal on grounds of maladministration and misconduct either by the AttorneyGeneral-who in law is the protector of charity—or the charity's trustees or, in certain circumstances, by other persons affected by the commissioners' decision. The commissioners' administrative decisions are also open to challenge through the judicial review procedure. There seems to us to be no conflict between the commissioners' investigative and advisory roles, so the Government doubt whether there is a need to create such an animal as a charity ombudsman.
The Government are confident that the legislation proposed in the White Paper and the continued vigilance of the public will result in a better service for charities and greater public confidence in the charitable sector, which I believe was the ultimate aim of my hon. Friend in initiating this Adjournment debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.